1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd 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 )

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2813 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 35). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Smith)

section 51 –– 2813

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

section 61 –– 2815

Ms. Brown

section 63 –– 2815

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

section 64 –– 2816

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Rose

section 65 –– 2817

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

section 66 –– 2817

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

section 68 –– 2817

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

section 72 –– 2820

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

section 73 –– 2820

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. McClelland

section 74 –– 2821

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Lea

Ms. Sanford

section 77 –– 2821

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 2822

Alcohol and Drug Commission Repeal Act (Bill 8). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen)

Section 1 –– 2822

Mrs. Sailly

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Third reading –– 2824

Appendix –– 2824

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983

The House met at 8:01 p.m.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like the House to please welcome one of my constituents, Derek Leech of Cloverdale, who is in the gallery this evening.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the second annual

day of unity with battered women which was endorsed as a national day

of solidarity by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

NAC is calling on supportive Members of Parliament, provincial

legislatures and local councils across Canada to raise issues of

concern at their respective levels of government. I ask the House to

join me in noting this very important day.

MR. SPEAKER: With due respect to the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, such introductions are not in keeping with the spirit

of introductions, which are basically for individuals. I would draw

that to the member's attention.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 51.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll put the question to you, and I don't know who you're going to put it to.

The

section of the Social Service Tax Act that's being amended lists

34 exemptions. The amendment before us now puts in a thirty-fifth which

says that the cabinet by regulation can exempt anything it wants to. It

would seem to me that there's some redundancy here. We should move an

amendment to get rid of the first 34 and simply have a few words there

to say that the cabinet by regulation can exempt any tangible personal

property. Or is it doing something that I'm missing? As I say, I don't

know who is going to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I presume someone is speaking for the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this regulation has really

been in effect for some number of years. It is saying that until such

time as a property is properly subdivided — if it's held for industrial

development — it may be exempted under the normal tax and held in

industrial property.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, could you refer the minister to Bill 35 for

a start? I wouldn't expect him to know anything about it, but it could at

least be the right bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the Social Service Tax Act amendments, described in

section 51 of this bill.

MR. STUPICH: That's the one he's talking about? Subdivisions?

Mr. Chairman, I need some assistance from somebody, and I look to you.

I asked a question about the sales tax legislation and about

section 51

of Bill 35. I'll read it. I could read

section 4(

l) of the Social

Service Tax Act, but it's a page and three-quarters. I'll do that if

that would help the minister in charge of the bill right now. In any

case,

section 4(

l) lists 34 specific exemptions from the sales tax

legislation. The

section we're dealing with now adds a 35th exemption

which says in effect that cabinet may by regulation exempt any item of

tangible personal property. It would seem to me there is a redundancy

here. We don't need the first 34 exemptions if we have another

exemption that says the cabinet can do anything it wants to by way of

exempting. So why not get rid of all the rest of these words and.... If

this is what cabinet wants to do, it could be able at any time to

exempt any item of tangible, personal property and simply say so

without having this long list in the legislation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I do apologize to the member for

Nanaimo. I thought he was talking about the exemptions that I give on

property tax from time to time, on estates and properties that are

being developed. This provision is of expressed statutory authority for

the exemption of regulation of six items of tangible, personal property

and one sales-type transaction: for example, draft beer, wood when used

as fuel, and certain types of motor vehicle sales.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, that isn't what

section 51 of Bill

35 reads. It reads: "tangible personal property that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe as exempted from taxation

under this act." To me, that's all-encompassing — at least, anything

that can be encompassed within the words "tangible personal property."

As I read this, it gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the

authority to exempt any tangible personal property. I'm still confused

by the minister's response.

Perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

can tell me what it means, rather than the minister in charge at the

moment.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, pass a note to him. Help him somehow.

I'll ask another question, then, Mr. Chairman. I'm not surprised

that the minister doesn't know. This shows the difficulty in bringing

in legislation like this that needs all of the ministers when they

can't all be here. This

section allows them to exempt anything at all

that they want to exempt. Does it also allow them to remove any

exemption that they want to remove? Can they bring in a regulation

tomorrow changing the list? They can certainly add anything to it, but

having added something, could cabinet the next day delete that

exemption?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the member for Nanaimo was Minister

of Finance for a number of years, and he knows that there is a list of

exemptions in the act, and he knows that there are certain articles

that are subject to sales tax. What this really does is give us the

opportunity by regulation to

[ Page 2814 ]

bring in those items which are not listed and which

are exempt at the present time — as I mentioned, draft beer, wood used

as fuel and certain other things which crop up from time to time.

MR. STUPICH: Just to correct the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development once more, Mr. Chairman, the member for

Nanaimo was Minister of Finance not for several years, but for two

months and 20 days.

In any case, as I read this section, it still gives cabinet the

authority to exempt — I wish the minister would look at it or that

somebody would read it to him — anything at all. In the event that

cabinet, using this section, exempts something tomorrow from taxation,

by using the authority that they have here to exempt anything at all

that they want to, may they the next day bring in a regulation deleting

that exemption? If they bring in a new exemption tomorrow, can they

reverse their position the next day?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, they wouldn't...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if the House Leader wishes to respond, he could take his place in debate.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, stand up and answer; I didn't catch that last word.

HON. MR. GARDOM: One would not do it capriciously.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm certain they wouldn't do

it capriciously. I'm asking if they have the legal authority to bring

an exemption in tomorrow adding to this list of 34 items, to make a

35th exemption, and then perhaps a year later change their minds

without coming back and getting legislative authority. I'm not

suggesting they'd do it capriciously; I'm just wondering if they have

the legal authority to reverse the process under this section.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member for Nanaimo knows that there

are a number of legal people involved in drafting legislation, and what

we're really saying is that if you run into an item that is not either

exempt or taxable, then we have the authority to put it in and it may

be changed, certainly. Surely to goodness you can understand that.

Somebody had found a loophole in the legislation, and what we're trying

to do here is plug the loophole. It's been in existence for a number of

years, and until some lawyer finds out that there's a possible loophole

in the deal.... That's all we're trying to do. I mean, there's no great

plot behind this deal, and I'm sure that when you were Minister of

Finance you had legal people advising you from time to time that they

had found loopholes in the legislation, so amendments were brought in

to plug them.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, may I just say that the

member for Nanaimo never tried to hide behind legal counsel when he was

concerned about his own ignorance on the subject.

May I just say to that minister, Mr. Chairman, one of the exemptions

that is listed in the statute is soft drinks. Soft drinks are included

under the heading of "tangible personal property." The

section that

we're dealing with right now gives the cabinet the authority to exempt

soft drinks; they need not be listed here. I could go through the whole

34 items and say that none of them need be listed, because the

section

we're dealing with right now gives cabinet the authority to exempt

every one of the 34 items currently in the legislation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, because soft drinks, the example you

bring up, is already listed in the legislation. So this amendment could

not exempt that.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, to the minister who is

attempting to answer the question, this

section doesn't plug loopholes;

this

section creates loopholes. What the

section says is that all

anyone who wants to have anything exempted from taxation has to do is

go to the cabinet and say: "Would you exempt?"

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am being heckled, I am being harassed, I am

being intimidated by that Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt), Mr. Chairman, who spends all of his time sitting

there heckling, harassing and intimidating me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll look after that. To the section, please.

MS. BROWN: What I would like to do is to call upon the fine

legal mind of the Attorney-General, who is responsible for this bill,

and see whether he can respond to the question put by the member for

Nanaimo. This is his bill, and I think it's time that his brilliance

should begin to exude across the floor of this chamber and give some

clarification. I think the questions being asked by the member for

Nanaimo are valid and should get a mature and clear response, which you

don't often get from Peace River.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[8:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: At the risk of violating the Human Rights Act, I fear the Greeks bearing gifts.

MS. BROWN: "Greeks"? He's even colour-blind.

HON. MR. SMITH: It provides an omnibus power of exemption of

tangible personal property in addition to those exemptions listed

there. As I got the gist of your point, it's correct that the cabinet

can add to that list. And the exemptions are still there in the

statute; they couldn't be subtracted from but they could be added to.

It's an omnibus additional exemption clause, as I read it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister wasn't here when I raised this question first, so I can understand....

But my point really was that this whole list is redundant because

cabinet has the authority to add to that list at any time. The question

that I asked, and to which I have not yet had an answer, is that by

this

section cabinet can add anything it wants to the list — it doesn't

need the list. Nevertheless, what we are doing now.... It can add

anything at all to that list. Does cabinet have the authority — a year

from now

[ Page 2815 ]

and not capriciously — to delete something that it has added to the list?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, hon. member, clearly it does.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister said, "Clearly

it does." I don't see that in the wording here. All I see here is that

cabinet may add any tangible personal property to the list. I don't see

that cabinet has the authority to remove any item of tangible personal

property from the list.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, hon. member, by operation of the

Interpretation Act, if you can make, you can repeal. So it's implicit

in law under the

Interpretation Act that if you exempt, you can

de-exempt, unexempt, non-exempt whatever you like.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to make very sure that I heard the

minister correctly when he said that this particular clause does not

allow the cabinet to delete any of the items that are specifically

listed. So they stay as is; it's just the ones that they add that they

can delete. I'm wondering why the government has chosen this path. It

certainly seems to have been a fairly contentious issue as to what is

and isn't exempt from taxation, and we have had them enshrined in

legislation before this.

Is this part of the same trend, where the government is taking more

and more power into the hands of cabinet to make these decisions? If

there are two or three items, as the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development indicated, why aren't we just adding those to the

list rather than leaving this carte blanche to cabinet to make these

changes in and out? It's difficult enough for people to know what's

taxable and what isn't taxable, without having the cabinet changing it

at whim.

HON. MR. SMITH: As I understand it, the amendment really

arises because, upon a careful examination of regulations, it was found

that some items that were included in regulations were clearly under

the exemption sections, and they were the ones that the hon. Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development outlined to you earlier.

These will now be included under the omnibus power. In no way try do I

try to disguise the fact that under that omnibus power additional

exemptions could be made, and those additional exemptions not listed in

4(

l) of the Social Service Tax Act now could indeed be repealed. Those

would become regulations and they would be filed and perusable. But

that can be done under the amendment.

Sections 51 to 60 inclusive approved.

section 61.

MS. BROWN: I just want to bring to the attention of the

committee the same issue raised under a number of different sections,

that what we have here is an amendment which cites the Human Rights

Act, which is not

an act in existence. It has not been debated on the

floor of this House. It certainly has not even had second reading, and

it hasn't been passed. I would question whether this

section is in

order in view of the fact that it is dealing with legislation which

doesn't exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that question has been well canvassed.

Sections 61 and 62 approved.

section 63.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like some clarification on this from

the minister responsible for the Waste Management Act. It is my

understanding of this that it is allowing the Ministry of Forests

officials to move in and do burning in various places that would

normally be under the control of the waste management branch of the

Ministry of Environment. It has come to my attention that there have

been occasions where this has happened, and in fact fires have been

left to burn in areas where there was not supposed to be any burning —

where, in fact, there was supposed to be landfill in waste management

sites and that wasn't happening. The case in point that I'm mentioning

is in McBride, where a tremendous problem developed because of supposed

landfill, and then when this didn't occur, the Ministry of Forests

officials came in and started to burn in an area that was very close to

civilization.

My question is: is this amendment to make that a legal thing? I know

the Minister of Environment was involved in charges being laid and

affidavits and so on in that McBride situation. It's one of many. It's

a general thing that has happened where that burning has taken place

and the Ministry of Forests people have come in and done this. In the

McBride case the fires were started. There was little supervision,

little control, a real.... I don't want to go into the great details of

that specific case, but it was a really horrendous experiment and

experience for the people involved. Is this to legalize that procedure

where the Ministry of Forests can come in and do burning in areas that

are supposed to be landfilled under all the terms of the contract of

the waste management people?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker. The reason for this

amendment is to deal specifically with the problem that the member is

mentioning, in that under the old

section it said "fires set or

permitted in pursuance," and it didn't define who was eligible or who

could be considered as setting that fire, or what type of fires. You'll

notice that under this new amendment it defines the people who can

instruct those fires to be set: that is, a regional manager under the

Forest Act, or an assistant under the Fire Services Act. Anyone who

sets a fire for the two purposes outlined in (

a) and (b) — for training

purposes or to act as, say, a fire guard — in other words, for those

purposes and by these people.... This amendment actually came from the

recommendation from the court that it was not clear who was entitled to

set the fire and what types of fires were covered.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister talks about a fire guard. What it

says is fire hazard. I can well imagine that a sanitary dump, which is

supposed to be landfilled every 10 or 20 days, and that doesn't happen,

could well become a fire hazard. That's what happened in the McBride

instance where it did become a fire hazard, I guess, because all the

garbage was there, it wasn't being covered, and instead of covering it,

they moved in and burned it. Now is this going to mean that if there is

a contract or an arrangement that it's supposed to be landfilled, in

the case of a sanitary dump, we're going to be

[ Page 2816 ]

able to go in and burn in lieu of landfilling in

spite of the understanding that that's to be the procedure? This is my

concern, and certainly it's the concern of many communities where they

have this situation — where they have the sanitary dumps and where, for

whatever reason, the landfill isn't taking place. Instead, burning is

taking place and causing a lot of problems in the pollution of the

atmosphere. It's dangerous as well because the fire has not been well

controlled. I would agree that if you have certain people responsible,

perhaps it's easier to control. But I would like some assurance that

we're not going to have this burning in areas where there are supposed

to be other methods of control.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think whether or not you can burn at a

sewage disposal site is covered under other sections of the act. In

this case, maybe it's just my

interpretation, but a fire guard would be

one particular use where a fire hazard exists. That would have to be

defined and so recognized by the people authorized under this section,

so not just anyone could go in and burn that under these people's

authorization. Presumably they would be quite conscious of whether that

provides a danger.

Section 63 approved.

section 64.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to ask a question on this one, the Water

Utility Act Amendment. Is this designed to ensure that developers of

small subdivisions who say they will provide water will come under some

firmer controls about ensuring that the water supply is adequate and

consistent with the terms of their prospectus? Is that the purpose of

this section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Actually, these additions to the definition

section are to parallel the Utilities Commission Act. In effect,

defining what is meant by compensation, service, a tenant, makes it

possible to decide whether a person supplying a water service is in

effect a private utility. Really, it parallels the

definitions in the

Utilities Commission Act, which covers public utilities. This could in

effect be a private utility. So it says this is a utility when they

charge rates, when they provide service, and it defines the term

"tenant."

MR. ROSE: That's an intriguing statement the minister has

made. I wonder what assurance he can give the House that he has powers

under this new provision to compel a subdivider to provide water

service to a person who purchased a portion of that subdivision. I know

of a situation, as an example, not very far from here, where a

subdivider has refused the person who purchased part of that

subdivision access or even an easement. This person has been without

water for six months. While the minister is pondering that, I will give

him a little more background.

The situation is that what we need in this province is for the

person who purchased a part of that subdivision and who is denied water

access to have the right to go on to that property to assure an

easement. This is presently not so. It has caused a great deal of

difficulty, and there is not one case of precedent where, in spite of

the act and the pamphlets from the ministry, this has been

acknowledged. I'd like assurance from the minister that this provision

in this amendment to the act will provide that kind of assurance and

assistance to a person so aggrieved.

[8:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's certainly not clear whether I can

provide that assurance under this amendment, which simply makes it

clear that a person supplying water service is in fact a water utility.

That would have to come under negotiations and under other areas that

are concerned with whether or not a person who is a water utility must

provide water to someone else. That would have to be something

different altogether, under negotiations forcing an easement for

someone who wants an easement. That would have to be in the arrangement

for the subdivision.

MR. ROSE: I'm not trying to provide any problems for the

minister here. I really want a clarification. If a person is designated

a water utility, does that person not have to honour his responsibility

as a utility and supply water to those people who seek it, and

especially those people who have purchased part of the subdivision

which designated this person as a water utility in the first place?

That's all I'm asking.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would imagine that would be covered under

section 4 in the Water Utility Act as to a person who is a water

utility: "The duties, responsibilities and restraints to which a water

utility is subject shall be the same as are imposed on a public utility

under the Utilities Commission Act.

MR. ROSE: Unfortunately, it's not the case. People have to

hire — that's a rather coarse, crude term for sort of getting legal

help. They have to acquire legal counsel. Legal counsel then has to

make application for a legal access and frequently that's refused.

Because legal access is not acquired, anyone who goes there, even to

repair a waterpipe, is subject to trespass. If the minister wants to

know

chapter and verse of this particular case, I would be delighted to

fill him in on it. But if what he is suggesting in this particular

amendment will be the case in future, that will solve a lot of

problems, and not just the one I mentioned.

We have all kinds of subdivisions in the member for Langley's riding

which were originally private water utilities. The original owner

subdivided the property, sold off the property and then sold his own

share in it. Suddenly no one is responsible, except the clerk of the

city. Often that city or municipality — Langley — has refused to honour

that commitment, or did in the past. So it's not an isolated sort of

esoteric example. It's a very serious problem. I'm not laying anything

at the doorstep of the minister from Langley; I'm just saying it has

been a problem.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It's all over now?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I think the municipal authority that authorizes a

subdivision then has a responsibility to continue to provide that

service after the original subdivider has gone off into the great sort

of "subdividers' heaven in the sky."

[ Page 2817 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose when a person forms a water

utility — or a water utility is formed — I'm assuming they have certain

conditions to meet. If something else happens down the road — a

subdivision and so on — and the person argues as to whether he has the

responsibility to provide the water or not, it's certainly something

that legal counsel are going to get involved in. It seems to happen all

the time. If the laws are fairly clear that they shall act the same as

a public utility, and if they say "No, I won't," then you get into

litigation.

Section 64 approved.

section 65.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this

section is very important to

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He's not in the House

tonight; I have no idea where he is.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: He's left the country, has he?

Mr. Chairman, in view of the importance of this and because it deals

with Crown land and the exchange of timber licences and stuff,

shouldn't we put this

section aside until he gets back and move on to

another section, unless there is someone else who can explain it to us?

I notice the fine legal mind of the Attorney-General is also missing.

He's gone with it. I see the Minister of Environment is indicating that

he can explain to us exactly what is going on in this section.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wish she hadn't said "exactly."

Basically, there's been a lot of negotiation going on about timber

rights between the federal government and the provincial government at

Pacific Rim National Park. That is just about concluded, so we can

conclude the agreement and finally have it in place. It may involve

some exchange of timber rights within the park for timber rights

somewhere else on Crown land. This is to enable the Minister of Forests

to do that.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing,

and now acting Minister of Forests, able to tell us whether or not any

consideration has been given to the people who are presently harvesting

the logs from some of these parcels which will be exchanged? I have in

mind a particular area that I understand is included in the exchange

which has basically been the last remaining source of timber supply for

small operators in my own constituency. It's Crown land and if it's

given in exchange to one of the majors, it's going to mean the

extinction of those small operators. I'm wondering what, if anything,

is being considered to ensure that those people still have a source of

supply so they can continue to operate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, the only thing I can tell the member

is that any forest land outside the park that would be eligible for

exchange would have to go through the due process of being considered:

whether that is available, and why, and why not. Presumably that would

include the rights of the small operators.

Section 65 approved.

section 66.

MRS. WALLACE:

Section 66 allows the regional manager to

authorize other persons to issue permits. Does this mean there's going

to be more paperwork for people in the field? I'm sure the minister is

aware of the tremendous load that a lot of his conservation officers

and similar people are carrying now because of the restraint program.

Because of attrition some conservation officers have been assigned to

deal with two locales and have lost their secretarial help. If this is

going to put an added burden on those people, I'm really concerned as

to how they're going to manage to deal with this. They are already

extremely overloaded.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Actually, under the Wildlife Act there are

various permits and regulation changes with conditions attached. For

instance, this limits it to the regional manager, which might be a

person in Prince George, and it may be someone that's a district

manager or a conservation officer in the field. In other words, the

regional manager or a person authorized by him can modify a permit or

issue a permit under his authority. It's actually going to cut the

paperwork and cut their work.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if the conservation officer is

having to modify or issue a permit, isn't that more paperwork for him?

It seems to me that's more, not less.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, right now it limits it to the

regional manager only. For instance, let me assume they want a permit

for an assistant guide or someone to help a guide-outfitter in the

field. Right now the only person that can issue that authority would be

a regional manager. This would allow the district conservation officer

to do the same thing. I can't see it involving more paperwork. I can

certainly see it providing a great deal better service to the public.

Sections 66 and 67 approved.

section 68.

MRS. WALLACE: The Chairman is checking out my amendment. I am

proposing a further minor amendment to this

section because of my

concern about the lack of any jurisdiction on the part of the Minister

of Environment, or anyone else, over imported animals. I was not aware

of this until we had the accident that we had at Kids' World just south

of Duncan. I've had considerable correspondence with the Ministry of

the Attorney-General and with the Ministry of Environment. My feeling

was that it was probably something for the Ministry of the

Attorney-General to deal with but I was assured that it was the

Ministry of Environment.

I have a letter from the Deputy Minister of the Environment

indicating that they are drafting regulations to cover imported animals

and the control and operation of zoos and other such places where these

animals are displayed for public viewing. In my investigations it seems

that there are no controls other than if you happen to be a member of

the Tynehead Zoological Society, where they set certain standards for

membership. A business permit is the only thing that they require to

operate a zoo.

Because of that I'm not at all sure this is the best spot to put

this particular thing or whether it's the best way to deal with it, but

in view of the fact that I do have the assurance that

[ Page 2818 ]

the Minister of Environment is looking at

regulations to control zoos and proposing, I'm told, that it should

come under the Wildlife Act, and because of my concern not only for the

safety of people who visit zoos but also for the comfort of the animals

who are captured and kept in those zoos, I really believe that we

should have some regulations here in the province. I've checked with

the federal authorities and they are looking at some

importation-exportation regulations to deal with bringing animals into

the country and taking them out of the country, but there's nothing to

do with how they're treated when they're here or how they're housed.

There are as many rules and regulations as there are zoos housing those

animals. You can come up with a very broad range of specifications.

I have a lot of correspondence here on this. I would hope that the

minister would see fit to take some action before we get involved in

further accidents. We had a case in Edmonton not long ago where,

because of an error in judgment, a child was mauled. We had the case in

Duncan where because of an error in judgment, a child was badly

handicapped. If it is indeed the responsibility of the Minister of

Environment and if it is indeed the Wildlife Act that should include

these kinds of controls, then I think the time has arrived to have

those controls. I would therefore move the amendment standing in my

name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[8:45]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm going to decline to accept that

amendment for several reasons. It adds nothing that isn't now covered

under the Wildlife Act, and it probably opens up the door to some

problems. In other words, what can you include under "exotic animals"?

You could include almost anything, so it opens up the door to too many

possibilities. For instance, right now

section 34(

l) of the Wildlife

Act prohibits the keeping of wildlife: except by permit or regulation.

The regulations now give us the authority to define wildlife. In other

words, once we define wildlife, then they can't be kept without permit

or regulation, and then the general regulations in

section 110 apply,

which pretty well covers that. So we don't really need another section.

I can assure the member that they are working on regulations and

looking at what can be done about controlling zoos, because most of the

accidents that have happened to date have pretty well been due to human

error. So it doesn't matter what laws you would have had; they would

have probably happened because of human error. But steps are being

taken to try to provide security. For instance,

section 9 of the permit

regulations gives the regional manager the right to include conditions

of the permit to keep wildlife; that is, "to prevent unnecessary

suffering, to provide adequate protection and shelter, to allow safe

and sanitary cleaning of wildlife in enclosures, to preclude the escape

of wildlife, to prevent by means of a secondary fence or barrier...."

In other words, all of the possibilities are already in the

regulations. What we need to do is just look at whether or not some

animals that are not now declared wildlife should be declared as

wildlife. So the amendment adds nothing to it and opens up the door to

a lot of problems.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has indicated that the definition

of wildlife can include these. Fine. Why doesn't he do it then? Every

answer that I got was that it did not include anything except native

animals. There is no inclusion of animals other than native animals. If

it does this, or can do it, then why doesn't he do it, instead of

letting it sit there without any coverage for lions, tigers, poisonous

snakes and all these other ferocious animals that are imported — you

name it — and displayed in zoos? I don't think we need to list what

they are. If they're being displayed, then we must be sure that they're

housed in such a way that they are comfortable and well housed, as he's

indicated the act says for the native animals, but also that they are

housed in such a way that there is the best possible protection for the

viewing public, and that there is not this possibility of children

putting their arms through the cage or being taken into a cage with an

animal. Those are the kinds of things that there is no regulation over.

You know what I get back from someone who works in the ministry?

They tell me that what we really need is a successful lawsuit. If

somebody gets hurt or killed and we have a lawsuit and they get a large

settlement, then insurance companies will take a second look and up

their premiums, and then people will be more careful. That's the answer

I get out of that ministry. So is it any wonder that I'm moving this

amendment to try to get some action and try to spur the minister into

some action now, not after we have another child maimed or killed.

MS. BROWN: What is so difficult, really, about understanding....

HON. MR. GARDOM: The powers are already there.

MS. BROWN: Well, the powers may be in there, but someone's

not enforcing it, and that's all that the member for Cowichan-Malahat

is saying. We all have heard of the very tragic experience, a matter of

a couple of months ago, where a child almost lost her life as a result

of the fact that even though the powers are in the act, they're not

being enforced, or no one's monitoring to see that they are enforced.

What's so difficult about seeing that these powers are enforced if they

already exist in the act? There aren't that many zoos in British

Columbia — there are some people who may say that there is only one,

namely this Legislature. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman,

that it's not that difficult a task and it's not asking for millions of

dollars. It's not asking for some huge expenditure on the part of the

government to ensure that when we do bring in exotic animals, when they

are placed on display for educational reasons.... That's what zoos are

for: they are supposed to teach us what all of these animals from other

parts of the world look like, how they live and what they feed on, etc.

But the fact still remains that if they are dangerous they should be

housed in such a way that they don't constitute a danger to us, and

that's not presently happening.

It seems to me that what the member for Cowichan-Malahat is asking

for in this amendment is something that all members on both sides of

the House should be in agreement with, rather than the sort of

genuflecting response that it's negative because it's coming from the

opposition.

MRS. WALLACE: I think that I need to read something into the

record, in view of what the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) throws across the floor and what the minister has

said. This is a letter from the Deputy Minister of Environment, B.E.

Marr, dated July 27, 1983:

[ Page 2819 ]

"I am in receipt of copies of your letter to Mr.

Richard Vogel, Deputy-Attorney-General, dated June 10, 1983, and his

reply to you on June 23, 1983.

"The mandate of this ministry includes the management

of populations of the 500 wildlife species native to this province. The

ministry also ensures that native species held in captivity are

humanely and safely controlled. At this time the Wildlife Act does not

cover the captivity conditions of non-native species.

"Following the unfortunate incident mentioned in your

letter, the minister has underway a review of the standards applied to

the control of native species held in captivity and of the options for

ensuring that exotic species are safely displayed in captivity."

You've got it under review; there is nothing in your amendment that

you brought in here that indicates you're doing it, and I am saying the

time to do it is now. If you don't like my amendment, bring in one of

your own.

MRS. DAILLY: Following up the points made by my colleagues, I

would like to ask the minister this question: could he please tell us

what inspection services are available now for zoos? Because I think

the whole point of the debate here is, first, once you include the

other exotic animals, who is actually going to check up on the

condition of the zoos to prevent these terrible accidents? And number

two, who will ensure that the animals are being properly taken care of?

How is this handled in B.C. now? Who checks on it and how often?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If they are not declared wildlife, we do

not supervise them under the Wildlife Act. What I am saying is that we

have all the powers without this proposed amendment to deal with them

simply by declaring them wildlife. For instance, no amount of

regulation or legislation can prevent someone from human error. If

someone opens a cage and lets a child in with a lion.... You can't have

locks that can't be unlocked. So that's the kind of stupidity that we

have to concern ourselves with and deal with, and that comes, I think,

under civil liability, and that protects the people. You can't prevent

some of the accidents just by adding regulations and legislation in

duplicate. I would hope that we can, and as has been indicated, the

ministry is now reviewing what should be classified as wildlife.

I must say to the member that you say in your amendment: "a person

who keeps animals for public viewing, including exotic animals." That

could open up the door to canaries, to anything in this world, and we'd

have to cover them and inspect them by regulations. That's why I think

we have to take a good look at what we declare wildlife and what we

have to protect.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the

minister, he completely avoided answering, or perhaps forgot, my

question. I'll word it very simply: what procedures are now in

existence for inspecting zoos in our province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am sorry, I can't answer the member's

question specifically as to what inspections are in place, because in

some cases we are not dealing with zoos. Presumably the insurance

companies when they cover the liability would do a great deal of that.

I will accept from the member that perhaps more should be done about

checking it. This is what the ministry is looking at right now. Perhaps

some of these that are now not declared as wildlife should be looked at

and considered as wildlife. When that happens, then, of course, our

whole act and ministry comes into play.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the House Leader, the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), mentioned that the act

presently covers this, and I wonder whether he would tell me what

section of the act covers this. I have a copy of the act here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Basically you have to take the

section that

I mentioned before,

section 34(l), which prohibits the keeping of

wildlife except by permit or regulation, and then under regulations we

can define wildlife, and then once that's defined as wildlife then

section 110(2) kicks in — (

d) and (

w) particularly, if the member wants

to reference them.

MS. BROWN: That does not deal with the question which was

raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat which, based on the letter

written to her by the deputy minister, stated quite clearly that the

act as it now stands does not cover the issue raised by her, which is

that these animals are still being kept in environments in such a way

that it's unsafe to children and other visitors to zoos. That's what

her amendment deals with. The House Leader says it's in the act; it's

not in the act. Would you give me the exact section, because the

section quoted by the minister does not cover that.

MRS. WALLACE: My question is, if it's in the act why aren't

you doing something about it? Why aren't you taking some steps to

ensure that these animals are safely displayed if it's covered in the

act? You can't have it both ways.

MS. BROWN: Would you like me to read you all of the sections

of the regulation, Mr. Chairman? Because it's not in the act. It's not

here. I'm looking at the act, and it does not have anything under all

of the regulations, which are here, or under the....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'll read the act into the record if that's what the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) wants.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Wildlife Act?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It does not deal....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'm sorry. Would the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations read the amendment to us, because clearly

someone is violating the act, and in addition to

[ Page 2820 ]

that, clearly the deputy minister is not aware that

this amendment is there. So if the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations has the information in front of him, will he share it with

the rest of the House? Where is it?

[9:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I thought I had covered that.

Section 110(2)(

w) says: "Prohibiting or regulating the keeping of

wildlife in captivity."

Section 9 of the Wildlife Act permit

regulations, B.C. regulation number 337-82, states that the regional

manager may include conditions of the permit to keep wildlife (

a) to

prevent unnecessary suffering, (

b) to provide adequate protection and

shelter, (

c) to allow safe and sanitary cleaning of wildlife in

enclosures, (

d) to preclude the escape of wildlife, and (

e) to prevent

by means of a secondary fence or barrier the public from coming into

personal contact with an enclosure. So when you relate those sections

together, you find that the authority definitely is there to do it.

What we have to look at is the ramifications of declaring whether or

not every animal that's kept in a zoo for display should be declared

wildlife. I think if the member thinks for a moment, you'll find that

there are a lot of animals kept in a zoo that are not dangerous. So the

possibility is there; our ministry is looking at what should be

declared as wildlife so that it is, in fact, controlled by this act.

More than that I cannot say, really.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, according to the deputy

minister, the mandate covers 500 wildlife species native to the

province. I would suppose that flies or perhaps mice are not included

in that 500. If we talk about exotic animals, or non-domestic, imported

animals, surely you can make the same discriminatory decision as to

which ones you're going to actually regulate. But can the minister

stand in this House and tell me — he's read all of the details about

wildlife, the regulations, and how you deal with those — that now,

today, that act applies to imported animals, be they whatever?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I've tried to make it clear that it can if

we declare them wildlife. That does not necessarily apply to imported

animals until they are declared wildlife.

MRS. WALLACE: But they are not declared. They are not

covered. That's the point we're trying to make with this amendment; you

need to take some steps to ensure that they are covered. That's the

whole argument we're putting forward, and that's why we're insisting

that what the minister is telling us is not really the way it is. When

it comes right down to it, while the powers may be there if you do this

or something else, if you add this, if you change that, as it stands

today they are not covered. That is our objection, and that's what this

amendment is all about.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 68 to 71 inclusive approved.

section 72.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] You'll notice

it is numbered (99) ; it's supposed to be (gg).

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's (gg) in

section 110, is that correct?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. Blame it on my handwriting.

The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the

regulation section, which the minister previously talked about under

the other section, includes a reference to allow specific regulations

to be made covering imported animals.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, for many of the reasons

outlined in the previous one — it adds nothing that isn't there already

— I see no point in adding the amendment. As indicated, regulations are

being worked on by the staff. The amendment is not required, in that

section, 110(2)(

w) already covers that.

MRS. WALLACE: One final question to the minister. Can he

assure me of any kind of a time-frame for when he will add imported

animals — however he is going to do it — to ensure that they are

covered by the Wildlife Act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In fairness, it would be wrong for me to

give an exact time-frame. I've indicated that we are looking at it. I

think we have to look at the various ramifications of what happens if

just any animal brought into the country is declared wildlife.

Amendment negatived.

Section 72 approved.

section 73.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not the board asked for this change, or just what brought it about.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the board has been

asking for this change for some time in order that they might be able

to broaden their investment practices. That's the first part of it. As

you may know, they have set up a private investment committee which is

advising them on ways in which they can better invest the funds

entrusted to them. They have substantially improved their investment

portfolio under the terms of the legislation the way it was written

before. They are precluded now from going much further. The second

part

is to allow them to keep their own accounting files for their

investment portfolio rather than having the Minister of Finance do all

of that for them and then charge them, which would have been a

reasonably substantial charge to the Workers' Compensation Board. Those

two changes embodied in that are both requested by the Workers'

Compensation Board.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the old

section 67 required that

all funds be turned over to the Minister of Finance. I take it now that

the board will actually be doing its own depositing, and everything

will be divorced from the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They would be allowed to under the changes. It won't necessarily happen, because

[ Page 2821 ]

there still will be some negotiation. They will be

allowed to now. The Ministry of Finance has adopted a practice of

charging for those kinds of services, and it will save the Workers'

Compensation Board considerable amounts if they should do that.

Section 73 approved.

section 74.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister could tell we whether the board asked for this change.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, this is a change that has been

recommended by staff in the ministry more than the board. But there is,

as you might understand, a lot more work for the board in the last

little while. As time goes by, we felt it might be wise to have the

opportunity, at least, to bring in another member of the board. So

we're making this provision. I don't know whether we'll appoint one or

not.

MR. STUPICH: There certainly have been a lot of delays in

dealing with cases by the Workers' Compensation Board machinery, but

not by the board itself, in my experience. The delays have been at the

advisory board levels, rather than by the board of commissioners. I

have not experienced any delay in getting responses from the board on

behalf of my constituents. I don't often like what they say, but I get

very quick responses. It's the rest of apparatus that needs the beefing

up, rather than adding one more commissioner. I'm suspicious that the

government has in mind appointing another political appointee to the

board and creating a job for a friend of the government. It would seem

to me there hasn't been a demonstrated need for another commissioner,

but there has been a demonstrated need for more advisory boards. I

think we're going in the wrong direction.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know what you describe as

political appointments. All of the board members are appointed by the

government. We may not appoint a member. My advice has been that at

least we should have the opportunity to be able to appoint another

member should we need to. I am probably out of order discussing the

boards of review, but in the past few months we have significantly

beefed up the boards of review. We've appointed a number of new people.

We've appointed a new chairman. We've developed a new system. We hope

to bring some legislation forward sometime very soon to be able to help

that along. As out of order as I am, answering the question, it's a

different question, but it's one that we're as concerned about as you

are.

MR. STUPICH: I'd suggest it's not completely out of order,

because here we're adding another member to the board, and the minister

and I were discussing the advisability of doing that, as opposed to

some alternative. Hiring another commissioner means we won't have the

money to hire more advisory board members. However, I have a follow-up

question that I hope you will not find out of order: is there a

vice-chairman? I know the act provides for one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, the act says that the minister may

appoint a vice-chairman with specific duties from the existing members

of the board. At this point there is no vice-chairman.

MR. STUPICH: I want to be sure on this. The minister said he

may or may not appoint a sixth member, and it's not adding a sixth

member so that there will be someone readily available to be

vice-chairman. There's no connection, I take it, from what the minister

said. I'm saying that adding a sixth member is not because a sixth

member is needed, if we're going to have a vice-chairman. I don't know

how the board works, whether they divide. I take it the minister says

that's not the case. He asked what I mean by "a political appointment."

I am talking about a shirt-tail relation of the Premier getting a

government agent's appointment. That would be a political appointment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can guarantee you I won't be appointing any relatives of the Premier.

MR. LEA: I would like to be a prophet for a moment. I say

that there will be a sixth member appointed. He will be a

vice-chairman, and he will replace the present chairman. If I'm wrong,

I'll buy the beer. I'll bet you a case of beer I'm right.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND ; Mr. Chairman, the member is on.

MS. SANFORD: I want briefly to reiterate that if there are to be any

appointments at all, they should be in the area of additional boards of review,

and not additional commissioners, because that's where the workload is,

Mr. Chairman; it's not in the job that these commissioners on the board

are undertaking at this point. In addition to that, it seems to me that most

of these boards are structured in such a way that where there is a disagreement

of opinion, you have an odd-numbered representation on the board so that if there

is a disagreement the chairman can cast the deciding vote. The minister is going

against most of these structures for boards of this type in order to appoint

that sixth person.

Sections 74 to 76 inclusive approved.

section 77.

[9:15]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of awakening the

Attorney-General, I'm going to speak in opposition to this section.

This is the one which brings this act into force by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor.... This act embodies in it a number of sections

which we've voted against, and which we've spoken against, so we're

opposed to it coming into force either by regulation or by any other

means. This is the act under which the government is going to start

burning vouchers, shredding documents and shutting down our access to

information. I'm opposed to this act coming into force either by

regulation or by any other means, because this is the act that guts the

Islands Trust, among other things. We heard the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talk about its failure in terms of

dealing with wildlife, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) talk

about its failure in terms of dealing with education, and a number of

other issues. For those reasons I'm opposed to

section 77, which sees

this act coming into force by regulation of the

[ Page 2822 ]

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and we're going to vote against this section.

Section 77 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 12

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

D'Arcy

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983, reported

completed without amendments, read a third time and passed on the

following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

NAYS — 11

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

D'Arcy

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG

COMMISSION REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MRS. DAILLY: This bill of course has only the one main

clause, the repealing of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. In second

reading I think the official opposition certainly expressed their

concern over the fact that we do not feel the government, which reaps

so many profits from the sale of liquor, is really taking its full

responsibility in preventing the abuses that go along with the use of

alcohol and of drugs, not just liquor. As this is committee stage, I

have a question for the minister. I would like to ask him what is going

to take the place of the Alcohol and Drug Commission in what I

understand were some of its objectives. I know the minister himself

stated, in talking about a revision of the commission when it was still

in existence, that it would be advising his ministry on policy matters.

Then he went on to talk about the importance of the coordination of six

different ministries to fight the abuses of alcohol and drugs, and said

that the Alcohol and Drug Commission would be acting as the correlating

body for this. So would the minister, who obviously believed the

commission did have some purpose, tell the House how he is going to

fulfill those objectives which he felt were fairly important just a

year ago?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Nothing has changed. The Ministry of Health

will itself be responsible for the work which was done previously by

the Alcohol and Drug Commission. The Alcohol and Drug Commission has in

effect not acted independently for the past couple of years. Those

people who have been acting in an advisory capacity are still available

to the Ministry of Health for purposes of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission. We will be using the work of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission and that

section of the Ministry responsible for programs

under this. Those programs will continue and nothing will be changed.

The only change really is that there will not be a separate commission;

rather, the purposes and work of this division will be under the

Ministry of Health. Those persons who have served on the commission

will still be available in an advisory capacity to the ministry.

[9:30]

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister tell the House just what his

own directions will be to his ministry re the whole area of prevention,

which I think was one of the objectives of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission? Now that it's repealed, how is the minister going to

handle, in his ministry, the whole area of prevention?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The area of prevention is one of the

reasons why the makeup of the commission occurred originally. In the

area of prevention we are required to seek assistance from other areas

of government, particularly Education, to some degree from those

responsible for ICBC, and

[ Page 2823 ]

from the Attorney-General's ministry, possibly

Human Resources, and some others. It's very difficult for the Alcohol

and Drug Commission to be the primary area of responsibility, in that

the commission and the Ministry of Health deal with those who have

suffered the effects of abuse of alcohol or drugs.

The area of prevention, I suppose to a very large degree, is

education. The attitude of our society today is such that for a period

of time prominent spokesmen in our society were promoting the use of

drugs in a very open way, and for a time it was very faddish and trendy

to do so. Thankfully, that has modified considerably. But the problem

associated with the abuse of alcohol or drugs is an age-old one, and I

suppose until such time as our society becomes sophisticated to the

point where it is not considered to be the in thing to abuse oneself

with either alcohol or drugs, we're going to be faced with a very

serious problem. The members of the advisory committee are taken from

the various ministries of the government who have some significant

influence into prevention, and we'll be continuing to work with them in

trying to correlate as best we can those areas where they may have

some, if not maximum, effect.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the minister in his reply made a

very interesting statement which I find somewhat disconcerting. He

stated that there was a period a few years back where the promotion of

drugs by certain people in our society had certainly created more abuse

than any of us wanted to see. He's talking about hard and soft drugs.

Obviously in his mind he separates alcohol from that. The minister

expressed concern about the promotion of drugs by certain people, and

there was approval from his colleagues.

Well, I would like to ask the minister, if he's so concerned about

the people who were promoting drugs in the past, how he can justify the

promotion by his own government of the use of one of the most lethal

drugs, alcohol. I am referring to the acceptance by the Social Credit

government of increased advertising for liquor and also the fact that

licences have now been given for the selling of liquor at the premises

where sports are taking place. If the minister is so concerned about

the promotion of drugs, why does he not have equal concern for his

government's own promotion of the sale of one of the most lethal drugs?

If you look at the incidence of the suicides, deaths, human tragedies

and social problems which come from alcohol, I think they exceed by far

the ones which have emanated from the hard and soft drugs. That does

not mean that anyone is condoning the use of those either. Would the

minister tell us how he rationalizes that statement he just made?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll do it on my terms.

When people such as Timothy Leary and some of these other freaks of the

1960s were telling people to turn on and use LSD and the rest of it, I

think they offered a grave disservice to society. And there were many,

many other spokesmen for this different generation in the 1960s who

strongly urged the use of drugs. Perhaps to that type of person alcohol

was much too mild a drug to use; they needed something that would alter

their minds. It's unfortunate that their minds were not permanently

altered. However, that went on for a long time and fortunately there

has been a change in the minds of people.

Now the use of alcohol is quite different, I agree with the member.

The advertising of alcohol has been a reality of our society for many,

many years. The government decided that it would modify the regulations

with respect to alcohol to permit advertising of beer and wine beyond

that of the published media — the newsprint media — to improve the

electronic media. The member would be well aware that we were in effect

bombarded with electronic media advertising for beer and wine anyway by

way of cablevision and stations outside our immediate jurisdiction.

The references to alcohol use have become such a part of our

society.... Even a member of this Legislature tonight bet another

member a case of beer, because it's such a part of our society. Mr.

Chairman, I mentioned to the member before that until there is some

sophistication in our society about the dangers of alcohol and other

drugs, we're not going to make that much headway. I would respectfully

suggest that until we really work hard in education and other areas of

prevention, we're going to be spending a tremendous amount of money and

effort through the Ministry of Health in attempting to rehabilitate

people who have reached the point where the abuse of alcohol and other

drugs has become a tragic problem for them.

I don't disagree with the member that alcohol, by the number of

people who are involved and affected by it, is far and away the number

one problem. We are not going to change that by regulation or by

legislation, as prohibition proved. We have to accept somehow that our

society must become a great deal more sophisticated and the concept of

abusing oneself with alcohol or drugs cannot be tolerated as something

to offer a person an advantage. Unfortunately that's the way it is in

the minds of many people. All of us have a tremendous responsibility,

particularly those in an influential position, and I suggest those in

elected office, those who are in a position of influencing young people

such as teachers and others and other instructors and those people who

are held in great esteem by other people. But, Mr. Chairman, we can't

do that simply by way of legislation or regulation. There has to be a

considerable modification of attitude on the part of our society,

including law enforcement officers, courts, legislators and the rest.

If we can ever reach the point where the abuse of oneself by way of

excessive use of alcohol or drugs is simply not even considered by an

individual — as it is in some countries — then perhaps we'll make some

progress. Until then the alcohol and drug portion of the Ministry of

Health is going to be looking after a lot of people who have reached a

very dangerous point in their life because of abuse. We'll do what we

can to try to rehabilitate them. We'll do what we can to encourage all

others to be involved in the area of prevention.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister got me on my feet. His

reference to Timothy Leary is certainly.... One can call it timely, but

very unfortunate in this particular situation. Timothy Leary, I would

gather, is looked upon by any responsible person as a creep. There's no

question about that. The leadership he gave, and the leadership others

like him gave, was in that vein.

However, when the minister tries to defend his government's

proposition that the alcohol advertising we see on the electronic media

today is in any way salutary, I just have to suggest to him that he

hasn't watched it. It shows the beautiful people coming in from skating

or skiing, or from doing some other very vital or constructive thing,

and now it's time for a "big beer."

[ Page 2824 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says sure. To

you and me it is insignificant. Those ads don't mean a darn to anybody

sitting in this Legislature, anybody past the mature level of

adulthood. But, Mr. Chairman, those ads appear in front of

impressionable kids as did that creep Leary. That's the danger. Leary

didn't affect the thinking of anybody here or of our age group. But the

problem with alcohol advertising on television is that it goes to those

high school kids who think it's the real thing to go out there and get

all boozed up. After all, they see these lovely skiers and bathing

beauties and all the rest of it. That's all we're trying to say, Mr.

Minister. As far as I'm concerned, that's something this government

should set their mind to. It's the question of having the most

dangerous drug of all pushed by the electronic media to the extent that

the print media can't do it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to

respond to the member opposite. It is a policy of this government to

allow advertising of beer and wines on the electronic media. I can

appreciate the possibility of people being influenced by the electronic

media with regard to the type of car they drive and the fact that one

goes from zero to 60 in so many seconds, and many other influential

ads, including political ads from time to time. I would hope the young

people, those that the member is concerned about, are a little more

mature than he gives them credit for. I would hope the parents of those

young people are doing their job of educating their children.

I want to deal very briefly and quickly with the electronic media

and the rationale behind allowing the ads to take place. The ads on the

electronic media were there anyway; they were coming in from across the

line. You could say that if they're coming across the line, the

influence was there whether it was in British Columbia or not. With the

advent of the ads on the electronic media, it means revenue in the

advertising field is maintained in British Columbia. It means that

possibly the jobs are also created in preparing those commercials on

the electronic media. It also means the liquor licensing and control

branch has the opportunity to monitor those ads and ensure that they do

not overly influence young people with regard to lifestyle.

One final thing, and I think it's important. The electronic media

advertising, the arrangements and the policy that was made by this

government, allowed for 15 percent of the air time on both radio and

television to be devoted to the problems with abuse of alcohol. I'm

sure the member opposite has seen commercials on television which are

very well done and which indicate that the overuse and abuse of alcohol

creates problems. I could refer the member — if he hasn't seen it, I

could get him a special showing — to the advertisement showing the man

coming out and almost going into his car, but looking across the street

he sees the picture of his son on a signboard, and the son saying to

him: "Dad, I hope we're going fishing or skating tomorrow." It's an

excellent ad, one that tells a story — and a very good story — to

parents about drinking and driving. There are other ones with regard to

the Counterattack program. They're all doing their part. But I would

like to think that in this day and age we aren't totally changed in our

lifestyle by what we see on television. We may look at it. We may judge

the difference between brand selection. But please don't tell me it's

the thing that drives the young or older people to drink. I can't

accept that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, to think that that minister is the

minister responsible for taking care of the needs of the people in

British Columbia with respect to alcohol advertising makes me sick.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[9:45]

Bill 8, Alcohol and Drug Commission Repeal Act, reported complete without amendments, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:46 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

35 Mrs. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 35)

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 to amend as

follows:

SECTION 68 , line 2, after "subsection (4)" add:

"

(5) A person who keeps animals for public viewing, including exotic

animals, shall conform to standards as specified in the regulations."

SECTION 72 , add to subsection (2):

"

(99) Prescribing standards for operating zoos or similar establishments

where animals, including exotic animals, are kept for public viewing."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada