1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5465 ]

CONTENTS

Address by J. Spellman, Governor, State of Washington –– 5465

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Farm equipment tax. Mrs. Wallace –– 5467

Market survey on Energy film. Mr. Lea –– 5468

Mrs. Dailly –– 5469

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman)

On vote 49: liquor control and licensing branch –– 5469

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lea

Mr. Levi

Division on an amendment

On vote 50: Corporate and Financial Services Commission –– 5483

Mr. Levi

Division on an amendment

On vote 52: building occupancy charges –– 5484

Mr. Levi

Division on an amendment

On vote 53: computer and consulting charges –– 5484

Mr. Levi

On the amendment to vote 53 –– 5484

Mr. Levi

Division on the amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5484

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Tabling Documents

Superintendent of insurance annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5487

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the

lights in the chamber have been raised to their present intensity so

that some of the ceremony which will take place in the chamber in a few

moments may be recorded on film. Does that meet with your approval? It

is so ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On this special occasion I would also ask leave to have question period suspended until later this afternoon.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Today it is a distinct pleasure for me on behalf not only of the

government, but all people in British Columbia, to welcome to this

chamber a delegation from the government in Washington state, our

friendly neighbour to the south. In introducing the members of the

delegation, and of course in anticipation of an address by Governor

Spellman, I would just like to reinforce the long friendship that has

been displayed by our two peoples for these many years. In fact, many

people think that cultural lines — as well as geographic and

demographic lines — run north-south on this continent which we share.

Nevertheless, because they do, it allows us that great depth of

international understanding which makes us best friends. In this

morning's work we were able to conclude two agreements. One was an

updating of the emergency measures agreement — first signed as a letter

of intent in 1969, then as an agreement in 1972 — making it meet more

fully the modern requirements of such an agreement. The second was

updating the amount of dollars contained in a forest fire suppression

agreement that I first had the opportunity as Premier to sign with a

former Governor of Washington state, Dan Evans. Today we're pleased

that these two further updatings of agreements can be dealt with

between us in this positive way.

Let me now introduce to the

Legislative Assembly members of the delegation travelling with the

Governor who are in the gallery: Hon. Ralph Munro, Secretary of State;

Mr. Donald Moos, Director of Ecology; Mr. Richard Schrock, Director of

Commerce and Economic Development; Mr. Richard Allison, Chief of Staff;

Mr. Paul O'Connor, Press Secretary; and Mr. David Stephens, Energy

Affairs Adviser. I might also advise that Mr. John R. Sharpe,

Consul-General of Canada in Seattle, Washington, and Mr. Robert W.

Moore, Consul-General of the United States of America in Vancouver,

British Columbia, are here today.

Before introducing

Governor Spellman, I might introduce perhaps the most important part of

the delegation for Washington state, certainly accompanied by the most

important person connected with my household: Mrs. Lois Spellman, wife

of Governor Spellman, and my wife Audrey.

Now it is my

pleasure to introduce to the assembly the Governor of the State of

Washington, Governor John Spellman, recently elected. We're looking

forward to a long and fruitful relationship, Governor, with your

administration and with you personally. Governor, I want the members of

this assembly to welcome you warmly today.

GOVERNOR SPELLMAN: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly,

it is my honour to accept your neighbourly invitation to visit Canada's

most beautiful province. Today I bring you four million handshakes from friends

and neighbours in Washington state.

While

this is my first foreign trip as Governor of the State of Washington,

it is impossible for me to feel foreign here. Rather, I feel very much

at home. Home, it is said, is where the heart is. Indeed, I have been

coming to British Columbia since I was just a little kid. My father

used to bundle me and our dogs into a car and bring us up to field

trials. Memories of those childhood junkets to this beautiful area will

never fade. I might add that both of Lois's parents are from New

Brunswick. I understand that there's some significance in that at this

point. She spent a good deal of her childhood visiting there.

have to confess that I have an active fantasy life too that involves

your home province. As a general rule, in most circumstances, I would

rather be fishing. In particular, I would rather be fishing for the

wily Kamloops trout on Hihium Lake. For years I have kept a Hihium Lake

pamphlet in one of the drawers of my desk in my office. Whenever the

headaches of bureaucracy have become too oppressive, I have reached

into my desk drawer, pulled out that pamphlet and daydreamed about

angling for those wily Kamloops trout. You should have seen some of the

beauties that I caught from my desk in Seattle. I haven't had much free

time behind my desk in Olympia to do any of that fishing yet, but I

assure you I shall.

British Columbia and the state of

Washington both share a unique corner of the world. Your people and our

people really have it all. Our commonality is far greater than our

differences. It is normal and natural for friends and neighbours who

share a common fence to fall into occasional dispute, sometimes even

with a bit of yelling across that fence. But there are few things in

life so satisfying as making up; a handshake of reconciliation across

that common fence is particularly warming.

So let me today,

together with you, mutually resolve that our bygones will indeed be

bygones. I think the former Speaker of the United States House of

Representatives, Sam Rayburn, put it well: "If we must disagree, let us

do so without being disagreeable." So let us resolve to refrain from

becoming disagreeable when we face future potential disagreements. We

have too much in common to let our minor spats stand between us. We

have a common past and a common future.

Long before Captain

George Vancouver "discovered" our area, the indigenous Indian tribes

lived in peace and commerce in this area. Before the fence was erected

between the two countries, with a different flag on either side of it,

the single flag of the Hudson's Bay Co. flew over the whole region. Of

course, then, as today, we still share that famous common rain.

The

rest of the nation — both nations — envy us our mutual environment, our

lifestyle and our metropolitan areas, which are among the most

desirable and most acclaimed on the face of the earth. As you know,

tourists flock to this beautiful location from the corners of the

earth, and certainly from the corners of our national maps, to be awed

by our mountains, our scenic islands and our fishing. Each of us knows

that that favourable environment and quality of life must not be

compromised, for this is the stuff upon which both our spirits and our

economies thrive. It is these things —

[ Page 5466 ]

the

quality of life and the environment — which make it possible for us to

be productive on the job, while giving special meaning to our lives

away from work; and which, as we and you are discovering every day,

attract new industry and economic life to our region.

Preserving

our environment makes economic sense. My state and your province have

both drawn forth, from arid regions east of the mountains, agricultural

gardens of Eden, nourished by giant irrigation projects. We have

demonstrated that we can indeed improve upon nature. Our separate

economies are based upon nature — both supported by the pillars of

timber, fishing and agriculture.

My state and your province

thrive on each other. We are each other's best tourist customers. We

have traditionally been best trading partners, with nearly $30 billion

of trade between us in the last decade. The citizens of British

Columbia are by far the number one investors in Washington state's

economy. We're bullish on each other, and we sometimes suffer together

economically when the downturns slow building and timber use, and when

our fishermen have particularly bad years.

But we do have

some differences. Some of them can be solved through bilateral

negotiations between Ottawa and Washington, D.C. We do, however, have a

regional agenda. It includes tankers in our precious waters and the

costs and the consistency of the supply of natural gas and

hydroelectric power. It certainly includes proposals for major

pipelines in our area. It includes the plight of the northwest

fisheries industry, and even weekend traffic jams at the Peace Arch.

Each

item on our regional agenda deserves careful consideration. But in

order not to prejudice that consideration, we should avoid rushing in

with an agenda of our own of strong unilateral demands — and I will do

so. Before we can get on with the work of dealing with these specific

problems and opportunities, I think we must first re-establish a

healthy sense of mutual good faith, which will in itself assure the

mutually successful resolution of our pending agenda.

I have

accepted Premier Bennett's invitation to come to Victoria today, Mr.

Speaker, and I am most appreciative of the opportunity to be able to

speak to the Legislative Assembly. I am here in order to lay a new

foundation and create a new framework for Washington state and the

province of British Columbia to find mutual beneficial solutions to our

common concerns. I am confident that we will find those solutions. The

pioneer spirit still lives vibrantly in our peoples. We share what we

call a "can do" mentality. There's no task that we cannot meet

successfully.

We both have a job to carry on in our

respective capitals of Ottawa and Washington, D.C., so that we may be

free to capture the promise of this unfolding frontier we face

together. I think we have to rally to the call of free trading in our

respective back-east capitals. We must argue against protectionism and

barriers. We must work together overseas to eliminate restrictions on

agricultural products. We must together speak boldly for more trade,

not less trade. For the frontier that we contemplate together is the

unfolding bounty of the entire Asian-Pacific Rim, the quickly emerging

focus of all world trade. Divine providence has granted us natural

deep-water ports, which human endeavour has transformed into modern

commercial facilities. We new kids out here in the west are about to

come into our own.

A glance at the Canadian map reveals that British Columbia is in the extreme

southwestern corner. A glance at our map indicates that while Alaska may be

in the northwestern corner, British Columbia and Washington state can take great

pride in sharing God's country which we call the Pacific Northwest. We do

indeed have a great deal in common, and I wouldn't want my trip in any way

to spoil that commonality of interest. We even have an independent sense of

geography. We know that as the century before focused on the deep-water ports

of the Atlantic and the opportunities of trade with Europe, history and geography

at this time centre upon the proximity of our ports and facilities to the great

markets of the east.

Most

importantly, though, I think that we share a boundless future. Let us

not go our separate ways into that future, but join hands across our

common fence and walk into the future together as good neighbours and

as close friends.

I thank you for the opportunity to address you. I look forward to welcoming you in the state of Washington.

MR. BARRETT:

On behalf of the official opposition, may I say that the Governor has

again proven the connection between the people of British Columbia and

the people of Washington by the strength of his address and his

informal approach, which is welcome here in the Pacific Northwest, both

in Canada and the United States. The Governor also shares a common

history with me; we are both graduates of Seattle University and have

both been influenced by the very great faculty of that institution. The

Governor was ahead of me in going through that institution and shows

his experience by his excellent address today. We both suffered some

experiences at Vets' Hall, I understand, but we'll put those behind us.

Governor,

I'd like to say on behalf of all people of this province, regardless of

politics, that there is a deep sense of understanding that this region

is unique in the world. We appreciate that uniqueness and intend to

protect it, regardless of any narrow political interest that we may

have at any given time. Your words today indicate that there is a

continuous pledge on behalf of the people of Washington state toward

that goal of common protection and common solutions that we both need

as a common people.

Let me conclude my thank you to the

Governor by just repeating those wonderful words that someone thought

to put on the Peace Arch, which are most appropriate for all of us here

in the northwest. We are indeed "children of a common mother," and we

are thankful for that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Governor

Spellman, I have had the opportunity of working with you not only this

morning but also in earlier phone conversations, when we developed the

ability to talk to each other, as have the people of Washington state

and the people of British Columbia in the past. I want to say that your

speech today reinforced the feeling of comfort and friendliness between

us. To me, to this assembly and to the people of British Columbia you

have reinforced the good intentions and friendliness of the people of

Washington state and the Pacific Northwest. You have also reinforced

our commonality of interests as well as a willingness to go beyond the

politics of nationalism — which happens from time to time, using each

other as whipping boys — to reach out and say that our mutual interest

is more important than self-interest, and that from time to time we are

going to be called upon to act as more than politicians: as

international friends and statesmen. Governor, you have exhibited that

today, for which I thank you, and I'm sure this Legislative Assembly

thanks you. The people of British Columbia look

[ Page

5467 ]

forward to a long and warm relationship between you, your people and our people.

The House took recess at 2:33 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:37 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'd just like to take this opportunity to welcome students from the

Nkwala School in the city of Penticton. There are students in the

precincts of this chamber, and I believe some in the gallery at the

present time, from grades 6 and 7, with their teacher Mr. Killins.

They've had the opportunity to visit Victoria as a result of a trip

they scheduled and funds they raised themselves to pay their way here.

They've seen the Provincial Museum and are now touring the buildings.

I'd like this House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Another group of school students are here from Nanaimo School District, from Rock City School. They

are elementary students, and therefore not in the gallery, but they are

in the precincts, so I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In the galleries are eight staff members from the

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs meeting in Victoria in the course

of a two-day seminar; some from Victoria, and some from around the province. Would members please welcome Francis Baskerville, Mary Gahrans, Eunice Ryder,

Barbara McLeod, Anita Horgan, Judy Tsakijima, Lynn Poapst, and John Thompson?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to welcome two visitors from Mission visiting the gallery for the second day in a row: Mr. and Mrs. Jack Campbell.

HON. MR. SMITH:

In your gallery today is a visitor from Edinburgh, a former school

teacher there, who has visited this province a number of times. Mr.

Callum Forrester is accompanied by my mother, Eleanor Smith, who is a

more frequent visitor to this place. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome 36 students from

the Edwin S. Richards School of Mission. Mr. Tough is their teacher. It's

to be noted that they are accompanied by nine parents, a very excellent group.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased if the House would

give a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Jack Bennett, from Toronto, Ontario.

MR. HOWARD: Before the Clerk at the table calls question period, I would

like to raise a point of order with Your Honour.

My point of order is founded upon the following facts: (1) the hon. member

for Delta (Mr. Davidson) is the Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on

Labour and Justice; (2) pursuant to the rules of the House it is possible for

members to ask the Chairman of a select standing committee questions during

question period with respect to matters falling to the Chairman of the particular

committee about which one seeks to ask questions; (3) the member for Delta is

now occupying the Chair as Deputy Speaker, and it places the assembly in the

unfortunate position, I submit, of being unable to ask the member for Delta

questions relating to his chairmanship of the committee on labour and justice.

I ask Your Honour to consider that and to consider what steps can be

taken to prevent the House from being placed in this awkward position

of being unable to ask questions of the member for Delta in his

capacity as Chairman when he is in fact in the chair. Some ruling

should be made, either that the member for Delta vacate his position as

Chairman of the labour and justice committee, or that he not occupy the

chair during question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The

member for Skeena raises a point that does require some consideration,

and without prejudicing the questions, I will take the matter under

advisement and see if some acceptable solution cannot be arrived at for

the benefit of the House.

Oral Questions

FARM EQUIPMENT TAX

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Some time ago

his ministry moved unilaterally to deprive farmers of their legitimate

tax exemption for a piece of farm equipment known as the Bobcat. That

exemption was retroactive to 1975. Did the minister approve the

decision to seek the retroactive tax bills amounting to hundreds of

dollars from unsuspecting farmers who purchased this equipment in good

faith?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, any question of

taxation obviously is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance of

the day. With respect to the specific issue which the hon. member has

raised, I think it must be viewed in the context of a very wide range

of exemptions which are granted to those in the agricultural community

and those who purchase a variety of goods and pieces of equipment.

There is a constant review underway now in the Ministry of Finance with

respect to the desirability of additional exemptions. I have indicated

to a number of people who have expressed concern with respect to this

specific piece of equipment — the commercial name of which is Bobcat;

that is one particular type — and we are examining those. On the

question of skidders and others, we're examining those in terms of the

budget for the 1982-83 year. I trust this review has occurred in

previous years. I can assure the member that while there are specific

cases which it is felt by certain individuals should be considered for

exemption, we gather those and review them towards the end of each

calendar year in preparation for the coming budget year.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister obviously has approved his retroactive collection of tax.

Is that still going forward, Mr. Minister? That's my question. Is that

tax being collected retroactive to 1975 at this point in time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that to be the case. I give that as the best possible information available to me at this moment.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister mentioned that the list has been constantly reviewed. I think he should check with

[ Page 5468 ]

his

predecessors; he may find that's not quite factual. Has this minister

decided to review the sales tax regulations on farm equipment in light

of today's farm technology, which has changed considerably since the

current regulations were drafted?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat heard

the answer I gave in response to her first question. We have a changing

technology. I recognize that there are those in the agriculture

community — and indeed there are members in this House — who feel that

perhaps the list of exempt items is somewhat out of date. I have made

it clear, not only in this House but elsewhere, that we are reviewing

that list, as indeed I think any government should. Certainly from time

to time it is going to be apparent that some items which have been

exempted are no longer employed in a particular activity — i.e.,

agriculture, manufacturing or whatever — while others which have come

into use should be given the most careful consideration for exemption.

don't know about all my predecessors in the Ministry of Finance

portfolio in this province. I do know that in the Ministry of Finance —

as we did last year and are doing now — whenever we receive a

suggestion with respect to a further exemption, we don't just

acknowledge that with a two- or three-line letter; we put that into a

file for most detailed and careful review at the appropriate time

towards the end of the calendar year when budget considerations are

coming before us.

MARKET SURVEY ON ENERGY FILM

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. For the record, will the minister confirm that his

ministry contracted with Goldfarb to conduct a viewer survey to

determine audience reaction to the half-hour television program that

featured the minister and other people and was played last Sunday?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. LEA: Was the survey by Goldfarb paid for by government funds? If so, how much?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I haven't got the invoices for the

survey yet. I'm sure those will be made available to the members of the

Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.

MR. LEA: What were the questions that Goldfarb asked viewers, generally? What kind of questions were they?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the list of questions

here with me. Generally, the program was designed to ensure that there was a

good awareness of the problems and challenges facing us in terms of energy security

in British Columbia in the future, and an understanding of the choices that

will be necessary for us as citizens to make if we are to achieve energy security

and some of the alternative paths which will have to be chosen if we are to

do the same thing. A film such as that is of little use if it misses its mark

in making those points to the audience which it serves. So the questions were

designed to find out whether or not that understanding was gained by the public

and whether or not there was, as a result of that understanding being gained,

some opportunity for different attitudes in terms of what we do with our own

energy resources in the future and how we respond as individuals to those needs.

MR. LEA:

I'm sure the minister understands that there is a delicate balance when

spending taxpayers' money on such a survey — that it's done strictly

for information. There's always at least the suspicion that it may be

done for partisan, political reasons — to get information back.

wonder if the minister has decided, in order that there should be no

misunderstanding with the taxpayers of the province, to make the

questions that were asked by Goldfarb and the results available to

those who have paid for them the taxpayers — so we can examine them at

our leisure.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd certainly like

to have the member and any others in the House take the opportunity to

view the film, first of all, to assure themselves that it is not a

partisan film and that it does serve the purpose for which it was

intended. When I have the opportunity to have the results of the

questionnaire myself.... I see no reason at this point why they

shouldn't be shared with the rest of this Legislature, so that they can

understand as well how the public reacted to the film.

MR. LEA: As I understand it, the minister did contract with Goldfarb to do this survey, not knowing how much it would cost.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, no. I didn't say that.

MR. LEA: Oh, you didn't. Well then, how much will it cost?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I didn't say that we didn't know how much it would cost. What I did say

was that the invoices for the survey are not in yet. Normal practice

followed in this House is for members to scrutinize the public accounts

of this Legislature.

MR. LEA: If I understand the minister correctly, it's his fond hope that by the time we scrutinize them, the next election will be over.

What

I'm asking the minister here is, regardless of public accounts: if you

know how much it costs — and you say you do — then what's your

hesitancy in letting us and the people who are going to pay the bill

know how much it is going to cost the taxpayers of the province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I don't have the actual invoices for the program yet, but the costs

will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of between $6,000 and $7,000.

MR. LEA: How many people were polled?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

As soon as I have the details of the results of the poll, I will be

happy to share all of the details with the members of this Legislature,

as I've promised. I'll share them all with the members. They'll have a

full opportunity to understand more fully what the poll was about, what

the questions were and what the answers were.

[ Page 5469 ]

MR. LEA:

The other day, during the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe'

s) estimates, I asked the Provincial Secretary whether he was aware of any

survey taking place. He said that he wasn't. I'll take his word for it,

of course. During the course of that debate, the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources rose in his place to inform us — when we

were trying to find out whether indeed a survey was going on — that the

film was not made under the Provincial Secretary but under his

department. Why didn't the minister admit at that time that the survey

was in his department?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Why didn't that member ask me the question?

MR. LEA:

That wasn't the question. The other day, why didn't the minister admit

in the House, when the question was up before us as a committee...? You

see, what it took was that we asked the Premier if he would go to each

minister and find out who did it — they knew they'd had it. The Premier

said he'd come back and tell us. Then he went out in the hall.... Is it

going to be this minister's practice that information asked for in this

House, which deserves to be answered, is only going to be provided when

he's caught and in a bind — by him then going out and telling the

press, as opposed to telling the House?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I can't apologize for the deficiencies of the opposition in attempting

to use question period in a way in which the questions get answered

correctly. Answers are given correctly. It's not my fault that they

don't know the processes of question period.

The film was

sponsored by the Ministry of Energy. It was developed by the Ministry

of Energy. It was in place and being produced for more than a year. The

time on the television was paid for by the Ministry of Energy. Had I

wanted to know an answer about that film, I think I would have asked

the Minister of Energy.

MR. LEA: Of course, the

question wasn't about the film. It was about the survey. That's what

the minister purposely avoided telling the House. Would the minister

tell us in the House — I'd like him to think carefully about this,

because we've all, in the gallery and the press, watched the byplay

over a couple of days — if it was his intention to tell us about the

survey, even if we hadn't asked?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I would expect that in the fullness of time, certainly. It was done

with public funds. It was publicly done and was out there in the

community. It was hardly a secret kept from anybody. There wouldn't be

any sense in taking a survey of this nature — especially when we're

trying to ascertain such important questions — if we wouldn't have

taken some further public response, following the answers to those

questions. There's been nothing hidden. It's been done through the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, fully open to public

scrutiny, as the funding is, through this Legislature. There couldn't

be anything more open than that.

MR. LEA: Now that

we're in a very open mood, and the minister admits that it's his duty

to tell us everything, how much did the film itself cost?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The budget for the film will be approximately $100,000.

MRS. DAILLY:

A supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources: in answer to a question posed this afternoon, I believe the

minister stated that the Goldfarb polling thing was public knowledge.

The public would know about it because they were being polled. I have a

question for the minister. When the poll took place, were the members

of the public who were contacted informed that this poll was being done

for the government of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'm not sure. I can certainly find out for the member. As I've said,

the poll was commissioned by the ministry, through ministry staff. The

questions were developed by Goldfarb. I'm not sure of the answer to

that question. but I'd certainly be happy to find out for the member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 49: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,438,605.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the minister.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

May I comment on the items raised by the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald)? For the record, may I first completely deny the

accuracy and the validity of his suggestion that there will be

political partiality in the granting of neighbourhood pub licence

applications, or with respect to the appeal process, or that there has

been in the past. What we're discussing, I think, is the technique for

appeal, or the lack of any avenue for appeal, arising from

neighbourhood pub licence rejections. If I heard my friend correctly,

he makes the point that he thinks the processing of neighbourhood pub

licences — the yes and the no — should end finally and completely with

a person whom you can call a bureaucrat. The member takes exception —

as I hear him — to the present legislation, which provides that in the

event of an appeal the minister or his deputy may hear such an appeal.

If I hear the member correctly, he argues, in part, that that may in

theory provide an opportunity for political partiality, if the minister

is going to be involved in a hearing. As I hear him, he goes on to

assert that there has been or that there will be political partiality —

both of which suggestions I want to completely and totally deny.

can't have it both ways. He suggests that the reason I have delegated

these appeals to the deputy minister as a policy is that for some

reason, being a politician, I'm too good to get involved in those kinds

of things. I've purposely delegated those appeals for the very reason

the member suggests. To avoid any suggestion of political interference,

I think it far better that appeal process be heard by the deputy

minister.

[ Page 5470 ]

Where

we

part company, I think, is as to whether there should be an appeal in

the first place. The tenor of my friends remarks seem to be that for

the citizens of this province, regardless of their political stripe —

if any, which should not be a material factor and indeed should not be

disclosed — they get their one shot for a licence, and even if there

happens to be a human error in the process there should be no appeal.

We happen to believe as a philosophy that there should be an appeal

provision for important bureaucratic provisions, and we think the

provision we provide is fair and flexible and that the appeal may be to

an elected person or his deputy. As I've tried to say, my policy will

be to delegate the hearing of those appeals to my deputy. I'd be

interested to hear more from the member as to his formula for the

appeal process, and I'd certainly like him to clearly understand my

categorical rejection of his suggestion that there has been or will be

political partiality in the granting of licences or the appeal

processes.

As to Mr. Karl Frangi, as I understand it that

application was approved five years ago — in 1976. As I heard the

member he took 1980 guidelines and compared them to a 1976 application

approval. The Frangi matter is one of five years age, and the member

revisits that five-year-old application approval in the context of pub

guidelines issued in December 1980. With respect, that's a bit of a non

sequitur.

MR. MACDONALD: November 7, 1978, wasn't it?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: My information is 1976, but in any event the guidelines the member is talking about are clearly from December 1980.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there is a similar previous guideline too.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. In any case, the matters we are presently

discussing are matters for which the present minister is responsible.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: With respect to the Sundowner matter, again, Mr. Chairman, I gather the date of that approval was October 1979 — some two and a half years ago.

MR. MACDONALD: October 1980.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, my notes indicate October 1979 for the approval.

MR. MACDONALD: October 27, 1980.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I'll recheck my material, Mr. Chairman. I'm quite confident of the fact

that October 1979 was the approval date. I will double-check that.

In any event, relative to the comments there may I simply say that to my knowledge

and information there's no evidence of political partiality in the granting

of pub licences. It will be the case in this province that persons bringing

forward pub applications will most likely fall in one of three categories politically.

They will be politically independent and uninvolved or they may happen to belong

to the government party or the opposition party. I don't think they should

be favoured or penalized if they choose to carry a party card. I think it's

most unfair that a person would be automatically penalized or censured by virtue

of supporting or having voted for a political party. If the suggestion is that

if you want to be in the neighbourhood pub business you should never carry a

political party card of any kind nor ever vote, I think that's going a little

too far. I would like to think that citizens in the province are free to pursue

privately, to pursue the political parties of their choice, to vote as they

see fit and to freely carry a party card, if they like, as part of their personal

political involvement or non-involvement. Separate from that, if they want to

pursue business in this province and seek a licence from government, they should

be able to do so as long as they seek no favour; they should also receive no

penalty for having chosen to be involved with a political party of any kind.

the member said, most certainly in theory there can be a possibility

that liquor and politics are mixing in the wrong way, and that's

something we all have to guard against. I can certainly tell the member

that I'm concerned to see that the kind of worries he conjectures about

don't come to pass.

I think that covers the items the member raised.

MR. MACDONALD:

I wasn't suggesting that there be no appeal. There was an appeal to the

Corporate and Financial Services Commission, and it was that appeal

that was eliminated in favour of an appeal to the minister, with the

provision that the deputy could also take the hearing. I appreciate

that we are dealing with a new minister. I think he's made a damning

admission when he says: "As a minister I will not take the appeal,

because it would be considered to be political." It sure would.

Congratulations. But that's the legislation of your government. That's

the way it's been done in the past, and I, quite frankly, don't see the

distinction when you have this kind of an appeal between an appeal to a

minister and an appeal to his deputy. I don't think the deputy, who is

usually — and a good deputy should be — more catholic than the Pope,

more loyal and, on some occasions, more ready to carry out the wishes

of the minister than the minister himself, should be put into that kind

of a position.

In the Sundowner case I made the point that

the guidelines of the board — and I've got two bulletins, not just

1980; the earlier one says the same thing — were, for no reasons which

were given, violated in granting the application. There are no rules in

this game whatsoever at the present time. Sometimes you say the rules

are that it shouldn't be in a shopping centre — you grant it in a

shopping centre; sometimes you say it shouldn't be within a mile of

another licensed outlet — you grant it within that, without a word of

explanation.

Here is a new minister who is defending his

portfolio. That's fine, but because I understand that he has had some

legal training, I ask him whether it isn't rather a bizarre scene in

terms of law to have an appeal where the Chairman, the member for Delta

(Mr. Davidson), is sitting there — not only in the Pridie one and for

the Olma brothers — the deputy at the time is sitting there on this

appeal, and nobody knows that it's going to happen. The public doesn't

know. It's not in the B.C. Gazette ;

they don't know that this appeal is coming up or that there will be an

appeal. It's all hugger-mugger; if you get favouritism for friends out

of that kind of legislation which has been written, who could possibly

be surprised?

There are no reasons given. I defy you to

point to one case where the deputy or the minister hearing an appeal —

what kind of an appeal is that really? — gave any reasons as to why:

"It was in a shopping centre and the bulletin says 'can be, but

shouldn't be' — it doesn't deny it altogether." But why was it exempted

from that policy? Why was it exempted

[ Page 5471 ]

from

being too close to a highway or too close to another licence? Why was

one granted with good parking facilities and another one — the one to

Frangi — with no parking facilities at all for the public that amount

to anything? I think you have to go away across the road. You're in a

wilderness here which would absolutely bewilder anybody who said:

"What's the policy of the government about this? And if I appeal, what

are the guidelines?" It's like going into the old court of Star Chamber

— was it? — and it's the length of the chancellor's foot, or what

somebody had for breakfast. There is just nothing.

When I

point out to the minister what happened in the marine pub case at

Gibsons and, as I pointed out — and it's been well documented in Hansard

— what happened in the Pridie case out in North Delta, where the Olma

brothers got it after Pridie was denied, any reasonable person would

have a great deal of difficulty saying that wasn't hugger-mugger

justice with favouritism to friends. That appeal procedure is totally

ridiculous. I don't want the minister going around saying that I'm

against an appeal; we wrote the original legislation and it went to a

body that holds an appeal in a judicial way — the Corporate and

Financial Services Commission. People have notice of their hearings and

they give reasons for their decisions. You see them in that.

back to that legislation and wipe out what's been happening in this

province. We're not supposed to discuss legislation, but that was an

appeal, as anybody would understand the term. This business of going to

the deputy or the minister privately is anything but satisfactory, and

the abuses that I have alleged to have taken place in this province are

things that this new minister ought to redress quickly.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, through you I would like to discuss a fairly

controversial issue with the minister, and that's the suggestion by me

— hopefully the minister will look into this — of allowing children to

accompany their parents into a licensed tavern. We find in many states

in the United States and in countries in Europe, and particularly in my

constituency which borders on the state of Alaska that some taverns

allow parents to bring their children in with them for a drink in a

family atmosphere where food is served.

There is a certain

section set aside in a lounge where parents can bring their child in,

or their family, and sit and have a drink in a licensed tavern. I know

there will be certain individuals who will say that a suggestion like

this is wrong because it's going to influence children into

drunkenness. But I think if we were realistic about it we'd find that

children of today have found, through the media — television and

newspapers — that there's already enough advertisement about alcohol

that their going into a licensed establishment with their parents

certainly won't turn them into alcoholics. I would like to see some

neighbourhood pubs open up where children can go in. I know that I and,

I think, many members of this House, when travelling throughout this

great province with our families, are at times stuck in hotels, and we

have a couple of options. We can either stay in the room, if we packed

some alcohol with us, or we can have room service send up a bottle for

fifteen thousand dollars. It would be so much easier if children were

allowed with us into a tavern or licensed establishment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Certain

individuals will say that this is wrong, and that you shouldn't take

children in. At this time, almost one out of every two accidents on the

highways is associated with some type of drinking, where an individual

will go in at 4 p.m., leave at midnight and get into a car accident.

We've also found that there's a lot of drinking going on in this

province. Some Statistics Canada figures state that British Columbia

has one of the highest rates of alcoholism per capita in the country.

It might be a worthwhile suggestion to try to stop this growth of

alcoholism and get back to some reasonable drinking. If children could

accompany their parents, maybe something would work out. A case in

point is in some northern areas where parents go into a tavern and the

children are left in the car — I think some members of this assembly

know about this. In the middle of winter, parents leave their children

in the car for three or four hours while they go into a tavern, a

licensed establishment or a neighbourhood pub. It would be so much

easier if we could allow children into a special

section of the tavern,

to alleviate this problem.

My suggestion to the minister is

that we wouldn't have to do this with carte blanche regulation. Maybe

we could do it for three months or six months, and do some kind of

consumer test on what effect it has in that locality concerning

accidents and drunkenness — and the police reports associated with it.

Try it on a short term of three or six months to see exactly what

effect it has on the community. If allowing children into the taverns

is shown to be a positive step, in that there is some responsible

drinking done, maybe that is a suggestion we could use to look further

into the drinking problem we have.

This is, of course, a

controversial issue. I know I will certainly be getting letters from

individuals who will say that by allowing children to go into a

licensed establishment you are encouraging them to become involved in

drinking. But I think, if we look at the overall issue of drinking and

what it does to family life — accidents on highways, health issues, the

employment aspects.... We have found out so often that one of the most

serious problems is alcoholism and its effect on the job. We find more

and more statistics concerning marriages and the effect drinking has on

marriages. By encouraging parents to go into establishments with their

children, maybe some of these serious problems could be broken down.

They don't seem to be getting any better.

I would certainly

hope that the minister could look into something that would allow

families to go into a pub — maybe setting certain hours, for instance.

I don't think any children should be up sitting in a lounge with their

parents at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock at night. I notice when I go to

Hyder, Alaska, there is usually an atmosphere that children should be

out by 9 o'clock. It's done by the management in that particular bar.

Children are able to be with their parents until 9 p.m. Maybe some type

of restrictive hours.... I would just like the minister's feeling

concerning these ideas that I've raised.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Could I clarify one thing? I take it that the suggestion from the

member for Atlin is that children be allowed to accompany parents, not

into a restaurant or meal-service setting where liquor is served in

conjunction, but rather into a bar or tavern where liquor is all that's

being served. I would have to say to the member that I personally would

have a very strong sense against the wisdom of that change at this

time. I appreciate that the member comes from a particularly unique

area in the

[ Page 5472 ]

province,

and in that unique setting there could be arguments not applicable to

most of the province. But to give the member a frank answer, I have a

very strong feeling against the suggestion that minors or children be

allowed into a pure drinking place with parents. Alternatively, for

example, if it's a family restaurant with meal service, where the

family wants to go for evening dinner, and the parents want a glass of

wine with the meal, I think that's a different thing. The short answer

is that I think I'd be one of those, to whom the member referred,

having a pretty strong reaction against it.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his remarks on this vote, I was

pleased to hear the minister indicate that government, on its

bookkeeping anyhow, was a net loser monetarily; and that social costs,

which are borne by other departments — and other departments see the

misery resulting from alcohol abuse — far outweigh the income side of

the ledger in terms of liquor sales. This is something similar to what

the former Minister of Health said a couple of years ago: that the

social cost to government will be found in the Ministry of Human

Resources and in the Ministry of Health, through increased hospital

costs and so on. I think that's probably quite correct.

The

minister then went on — and admittedly he was dealing with a question

that had been put to him relating to the price of liquor — to follow

the reference to the social costs of it with a comparison of the prices

of liquor in various provinces and other jurisdictions, and of price

increases in other items and other commodities. I came out at the end

with the conclusion that the price of liquor vis-à-vis what it was a

few years ago is not measurably out of line with the price increases

experienced by other commodities.

Regretfully, though, I

think the minister had a good opportunity then to embark upon a

sociological and humanitarian discussion of the social costs. I wish he

had done that. I wish we had been able to get the reference point

there. I am one of those who has a concern about the social costs, as

have others in this chamber — it's not an exclusive attitude or

feeling. I think the government, in a total sense, probably doesn't

have that orientation. Look at the budget speech, for example. The

budget speech opening the session in March talked about tax increases

on energy as being necessary in order to conserve. Increase the price

of something by a tax increase, thereby bringing about a reduction in

the consumption of that particular commodity because it costs more.

That was all right as an attitude which applied to oil and energy

prices. But the budget also made reference to the necessity or the

desirability of increasing the price of liquor, taxing that or raising

its price to the consumer. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

was going to talk about this with his colleague, the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Subsequently that came to pass. But

nowhere in the budget speech was there any reference, intimation or

hint that by increasing the price of liquor, we might thereby cut down

the consumption of it by making it more costly. I submit that putting

those two positions in juxtaposition, one to the other, indicates that

there isn't a true appreciation in the government as a whole of the

social costs of alcohol abuse.

Mr. Chairman, alcohol use is up. Consumption of alcohol is up. I've heard

figures — and I'm not going to bother going through them to identify the

figures in any statistical way, using 2 percent or whatever it is. It's

a fact, I'm told, that consumption of alcohol on a per capita basis has

been increasing in the last few years. Consumption of alcohol by younger people

has been increasing in the last few years. Consumption of alcohol in British

Columbia is at a higher level per capita than any other province of Canada,

so some statistics tell me. Alcohol abuse has increased. Automobile accidents

have increased as a result of alcohol and the use and abuse of alcohol. Deaths

as a result of alcohol-connected accidents in automobiles have increased. Deaths

as a result of cirrhosis of the liver have increased. Family break-ups and mental

health problems have increased. Hospitalization of people has increased as a

result of alcohol and alcohol abuse. In fact, in acute-care hospitals there

are — so hospital authorities and medical practitioners say, and, I'm sure,

so the minister and the Ministry of Health will certainly say — many cases that

come into the hospital — sprains, abrasions, failing down the stairs, broken

limbs — that are not identified to the hospital as being caused by alcohol abuse,

but they are, in fact, caused by alcohol abuse. All the hospital records show

is that a person came in with skinned knees and a broken shoulder from having

fallen down someplace. But actually and factually, the alcohol-abuse connection

with that is masked by not having it so identified. Child neglect and injuries

within families.... A tremendous unidentifiable social cost is there because

of the use and abuse of alcohol.

One

of the contributing factors to increased use of alcohol is advertising.

It's common knowledge in every walk of commercial life that if you want

to increase the sales of something — so says Pepsi-Cola, Bayer aspirin,

Arrid roll-on underarm deodorant and whoever wants to sell anything —

you increase the advertising, sophisticate the advertising techniques,

and your sales increase. This is true in the liquor industry as well.

The greater amount of advertising of booze that takes place —

dressed-up, euphemized in its description of what it is — the greater

the increase in the sales and consumption, and it lends itself to

increasing the abuse of that.

I got a magazine out of the

library that I'd like to flip through. I just picked it up off the

library shelf. It's a family magazine in Canada called Maclean's ,

which is well known, well read and family oriented. The first page I

open up — I won't identify the booze, because that would probably be

advertising it — right inside the front cover is liquor. There are some

nice pictures on it, and it talks about rarity. It says: "Rare taste —

the classic characteristic that has made this particular brand so much

sought after." Turning to a couple of other pages, here we have a

variety of alcohols: whisky, rum and vodka. It's a full page and glossy

— in a family magazine. Listen to some of the descriptions: "A light,

white, mellow tasting rum." It's a beautiful sound. You can just feel

it slipping past your lips. What they're trying to tell you is that

it's a beautiful flavour. Here's another one: "A very pure vodka —

triple-filtered." They don't tell you whether it's filtered through

asbestos or not, which causes some difficulties, but it's

triple-filtered. "For a unique, crystal, sparkling taste" — it just

attracts you and makes you want to rush into the store and buy some.

doesn't tell you anything about the misery that accrues from this. It

doesn't tell you anything about cirrhosis of the liver, about family

breakups that take place or about the misery visited upon kids in the

family when this is abused, because people are attracted partly by the

advertisement. "Light in body, specially smooth in flavour" — it's all

the way through. I've totalled these all up to show you here. Here's

another one: "Bonded Stock is a rye-drinker's rye" — masculine. It's

got three young, handsome, virile and well-

[ Page 5473 ]

tanned

looking individuals smiling at you out of the picture. You think, man,

all I've got to do is to drink some of that rye and I'm going to look

like that. That's not the case. You can end up with a bulbous nose,

bleary eyes, bad teeth, bad breath and cirrhosis of the liver all at

the same time.

Here's another one that's a full page:

"Discover Certain Wines." Here's another one: "Silent Sam" — that's the

name of the booze — "sneaks up on you." Here's a fellow that makes sure

that a certain brand of whiskey is "mellowed for ten full years to

create the smoothest tasting whiskey you can ever find." It goes on and

on. "Here's something so light, all it needs is ice." On the first

about 20 pages of this family magazine — then it starts to get into the

news part, after they get through the advertising in the front part and

get to items of some general interest — there are some 17

advertisements. Seven full pages of those advertisements are for booze.

There's a half-page one about booze as well. Almost half of the total

advertising in the first part of a family magazine is advertising

liquor. If you turn to the back page you find the same thing. You can't

escape it.

The liquor industry pours literally millions and

millions of dollars into advertising. It comes back to them in the form

of increased sales. Never mind the increased price that the liquor

distribution branch charges or the sales tax on top of it; it just goes

straight to the distillers, wineries and breweries. They get their

money back many times over. You just need to look at the balance sheets

of groups like Seagram's and the like to find that out.

submit that if we're going to permit — and we are — the liquor, beer

and wine industries to engage in a full-scale multimillion dollar

advertising program — misleading advertising, because they only tell

part of the story — to get the general public to buy and drink more of

their product, we need to recognize who the beneficiary is: the liquor

industry. Who do the costs fall upon on the other side of the ledger?

They fall upon the individual who cannot control it, the family who

cannot control it and who abuse it and poor unsuspecting kids who are

caught in that squeeze and injured thereby. The dollar value cost is

borne by the taxpayers through taxes they pay to cover hospital care

and the cost of care through Human Resources and the like.

put this case forward before and I put it forward again. I say to the

minister that for every dollar the liquor industry spends in

advertising its product and wares, they should be required to put up a

dollar into a counter-advertising program that the government runs. The

government uses it dollar for dollar. If the liquor industry wants to

advertise to sell its wares in order that it be the financial

beneficiary, it should put up another buck into a fund that the

government uses to advertise about the awkwardnesses that come as a

result of alcohol abuse. We should try to have a counter-balance

advertising program there. After all, I think it's probably not very

helpful solely to permit the advertiser to be the only beneficiary of a

massive advertising program with those horrendous social costs

following therefrom. The general public should be a beneficiary in this

aspect as well.

The minister, I understand — I don't know

how widespread this was — submitted a questionnaire to people with

respect to the proposal to permit the sale of beer and wine in grocery

stores.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: No. The supermarkets did it themselves.

MR. HOWARD: The supermarkets submitted a questionnaire. Okay.

The

questionnaire was, as I understand it, as follows: "Are you in favour

of the sale of beer, wine, etc., in grocery stores? Yes. No. No

opinion." That, I think, was a very poor way for that group who have a

vested interest and who basically say: "Yes, we want to be able to sell

beer and wine." Why? Not because the grocery chains have any concern

about social costs. The individual managers of the store and the people

working in it may have that concern, but the chain — the institution

itself — does not have.

As the minister knows, a corporation

has all the attributes of a human being except a heart and a soul. A

corporation doesn't have that concern; individuals do. I submit it was

improper for a group with a vested interest to have submitted that kind

of questionnaire to groups of people when they have a vested interest

in it.

A simple yes, no, no opinion is far too shallow a

type of questionnaire to submit to people on a very complex problem. It

had no indication that there were any social costs, no indication that

it was good or bad, no indication as to whether the grocery chain was

going to profit thereby and no indication that additional people were

going to end up on skid row, die of cirrhosis of the liver, end up in

an automobile accident, beat their kids, or whatever happens when

people abuse alcohol. No rationale was proposed of a balanced type of

opinion that says: "Here are both sides of the question. Now what do

you think?"

Alcohol is a poison. It has poisoned people, and

it will poison them again. It all comes down to the individual being

responsible for one's own acts. We all recognize that. Very

regretfully, there are people in our society who have not had the

benefit of family guidance and parental counselling in the wise use of

these poisons that are available to us in every walk of life.

Regretfully, there are people who grew up who may not have the

intellectual perception of the difficulties they will be faced with.

They may not be able to have the capacity to be responsible for their

own activities. When that happens the costs of their intemperate use of

this poison called alcohol are visited not solely on the one

individual, but upon his family, friends, neighbours and the whole of

society. The whole society of that individual ends up being

hospitalized, dying or whatever the case may be.

I submit to

you that if we widen the opportunity — and the more that opportunity is

widened to make alcohol available the more widely will become its use —

the greater will be the consumption and the greater will be the social

misery and costs that arrive therefrom. We have enough of that already.

In my view a simple kind of reference point that says how much does it

cost for a quart of whisky, why does it cost $9.20 when you can make it

for $1.35, etc.... I think, regretfully, that we're looking at it from

the wrong point of view. If we look at it in terms of the social cost

and the necessity of education, counselling and guidance, either

through our educational system or through inculcating the attitude in

parents that they have a responsibility to themselves and their

children in trying to advise about a rational and sensible use of

alcohol and not an abuse of it, we'll be far better off in our society.

know that basically the minister is in no disagreement with what I'm

saying, and I hope we'll be able to see some positive steps come out of

his ministry in the direction that I'm advocating at the moment.

[ Page 5474 ]

MR. BARNES:

I certainly would like to congratulate the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) on a very eloquent and to the-point presentation with respect

to the evils of alcohol, and would commend everyone who is concerned

about some of our social problems that are the result of this major

industry to read his remarks and distribute them, because I think

they're very appropriate for the problems we're currently dealing with.

I'll

only take a minute or two. First of all I wanted to refer to a study

that was prepared by the Downtown Community Health Clinic for the

Downtown Eastside Residents Association. Perhaps the minister is aware

of this; it was done in 1980. There is a table that I would like to

refer to with respect to bylaw violations in the city of Vancouver.

There are 23 hotels. Downtown eastside hotels in Vancouver are a

perfect illustration of some of the extreme results of exploitation in

the use of alcohol by all kinds of people. There are listed here 23

hotels. I'd just like to read them briefly for the members. Some of

these are licensed premises and some are just boarding-rooms housing

people who are on fixed incomes. The main point of this is that some

are hotels and some are rooming-houses. But there have been several

violations, like general repairs, maintenance and cleaning, fire

bylaws, and I just wanted to give you an idea of how bad it is.

The

last figure I'll give will be the documented examples of violations in

the year 1980 alone, and these are totals of the categories I just

mentioned: Drexel Rooms — 233; Main Rooms — 207; Ohio Rooms — 236;

Warren Hotel — 580; Vanport Hotel — 971; 832 East Pender — 154; George

Rooms — 584; West Hotel — 961; Palace Hotel — 261; Cobalt Hotel —

1,037; the Victoria Block — 611; Cordova Rooms — 262; Afton Hotel —

366; 1190 East Hastings — 261; Tremont Hotel — 381; The Veile Hotel —

211; Savoy Hotel — 305; Francis Fay — 489; Wings Hotel — 421; Wonder

Rooms — 485; Lions Hotel — 265; Kings Rooms — 298; Hastings Rooms — 183.

That's

a total of 9,743 violations for 23 establishments, a combination of

hotels and rooming-houses. You can be assured that the owners of these

facilities are not inclined to do very much about it, because the

enforcement of the bylaws, both at the civic level and as far as the

liquor administration of this province is concerned, seems to be very

negligent — enforcing the bylaws which exist with respect to protecting

those consumers who, tragically, have very few alternatives to the

lifestyles they seem to be subjected to.

The question of the

proliferation of liquor establishments has been raised in the study as

being in excess of the need. As a statistic, I recall that 20 years ago

there were one-third as many. I believe there were 80-odd liquor

outlets on the government side, and there are now over 150 per 100,000,

which indicates a 200 percent increase per 1,000 — liquor

establishments that the government has increased. I guess the concept

is to make alcohol more accessible. It's clear that the government's

policy is to exploit the liquor industry as a main source of revenue.

As the previous speaker indicated, that is hardly the field in which we

should be attempting to balance the budget. In fact, it is an

unfortunate tradition in our society, but we're not unique.

Drinking

can be enjoyable socially, and most of us like to feel that we are

under control — those of us who do drink — and that we don't personally

have problems. I would submit that habituation can slip up on all of us

at the best of times and with the best of intentions. Certainly, when

many of these people are restricted in the outlets available to them,

they find themselves going to beer parlors and drinking houses, because

the rooms they live in are filthy, unkempt, untidy, and the maintenance

is virtually nonexistent. They find it more comfortable to go to one of

these drinking establishments than to stay in their little dingy rooms.

The whole question of bootlegging, the weak enforcement of liquor laws

and, as I said earlier, the proliferation of liquor establishments

should be looked at with a view to a more rational and reasonable

approach to providing this poisonous spirit, as my colleague from

Skeena pointed out.

I would commend this study to the

minister. If he does not have it, I would certainly be pleased to make

it available to him. The downtown east side in Vancouver is probably

one of the few communities that have attempted to analyze the effects

of such problems as alcohol on the community. Perhaps none of the other

communities have the same kind of intensity. I doubt if there is a need

in the Shaughnessy or west Point Grey areas, specifically, to do these

kinds of studies, although there may be just as many people using

alcohol. Their economic situation may be such that they have other

options to them. It hardly becomes a visible problem for the community

in which it's happening.

The downtown east side is well

known as being the last stop for many citizens who have been unable to

find their way successfully in the extremely competitive communities in

which they live. As a result, they are quite often neglected by

officials. The attitude is one of general indifference. Most of the

licensees operating establishments in the area take the view that there

is no serious commitment on the part of various levels of government to

do anything other than accept those communities as a reality of the

times and the natural consequence of the kind of lifestyle that we seem

to accept in our culture.

I would just like to go on record

as saying that this question is definitely associated with the one that

the minister has indicated he will be attempting to get information on

with respect to the closing of the liquor store in the vicinity of

Hastings and Main. I understand that on May 23 you'll be holding a

public meeting. I would like you to review this study in advance.

Notwithstanding the fact that the city of Vancouver has apparently

already voted in favour of closing that particular liquor store for

obvious reasons, I would hope that the minister will reflect this

desire on the part of the city. Just as the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) has pointed out the uniqueness of his community with respect

to persons who are visiting community pubs with children, having a

problem because of the remoteness of the area and the vast miles that

they have to travel and so forth.... It's a unique problem. This is

analogous to what we have to deal with in the downtown east side as

well. That is a unique community. It's highly populated, but one where

most people have not been successful in acquiring the job skills they

need, or the access to resources, housing and social amenities. They

are simply a forgotten community. Yet it is a definite community of

very hard working people who are trying to manage their affairs. I

think that they are being taken advantage of.

The use of

alcohol and other drugs is a form of relief. Unfortunately it is too

often the only option they seem to have. There are very few other

options in terms of reestablishing themselves and getting back into the

mainstream of society. In the face of many of these obstacles, it's

awfully easy to become discouraged. I think that it's just a tragic

commentary on the inequities of our society with respect to some of

these people.

[ Page 5475 ]

Would

you be good enough, Mr. Minister, to indicate what the government has

planned for trying to raise a level of respectability in that

community, recognizing that most of the liquor outlets in that area are

operated by individuals who have totally disregarded the bylaws of the

city and the laws that certainly could be enforced? The list I read off

to you should certainly be grounds enough to lift licences, to

prosecute and to begin to demonstrate that we may not outlaw drinking,

but we do have rules with respect to how people will drink and under

what conditions.

I think it is incumbent upon this minister,

who has the opportunity to make his first initiatives positive and

forceful. You have had no opportunity to make very many mistakes.

Therefore you have set no bad precedents, though several of them have

been set by some of your predecessors. I would encourage you to do some

good for everyone in a non-partisan way, and at least insist that the

laws already on the books be enforced. I'm not suggesting new laws.

There certainly should be standards of maintenance consistent with the

obvious needs, but they're all laws on the books. I just read to you

that there were over 9,000 violations. I think that if we could even do

that, we would show that we are committed to enforcing the law. I think

everyone expects that they are quite capable of abiding by the law as

long as the law officials insist that they do, but when you turn a

blind eye, it sort of passively says: "Don't worry. It's on the books,

but we're not that concerned anyway, because most of those people are

not worthy."

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I was aware of the

DERA study to which the member referred, but I have not previously

actually had a copy. If he has a spare or could make me a copy, I would

receive it and read it with great interest.

Relative to the

question of the licensees in the area and infractions, I hope to soon

meet with Deputy Chief Herdman of the Vancouver city police force,

together with those of his people involved in the policing aspect of

the area. I have already discussed that problem area with our own

officials in liquor control and licensing. I want to do some more work

there.

With respect to Main and Hastings, for the benefit of

the member, can I just make clear the steps I'm taking. There would

appear to be some confusion in the mind of Alderman Eriksen as to the

steps we're taking, notwithstanding that we've tried to make our steps

very clear. My first step was to personally acquaint myself with that

Main and Hastings problem by, at his request, meeting with Alderman

Eriksen and several groups representing his point of view in that area.

I publicly received their briefs and heard their concerns and then did

a walking tour of the area.

Since that time, others in the

community have been in touch with me to indicate that they don't share

his very strong view that the store should be closed. Before I make a

decision I want to give everybody in that community a chance to

publicly make their point of view to me in the same way as do those who

advocate Alderman Eriksen's position. For example, I've heard from some

small merchants up the street who are very concerned that the problem

will simply slide up to them. I've not heard at all from the union

involved, and I would like to hear from them. It's my observation that

native groups should be asked for their view on the topic. Also, I

think I'd like to hear from residential and ratepayer or community

groups in the area of other liquor stores to which the problem might be

transferred, and I'm not saying it would be.

Most

importantly I want the member to understand — and Alderman Eriksen

apparently doesn't appreciate this — that what we would like to try to

do, speaking on behalf of the LDB, is not take sides in the community

if there is divided opinion, but rather be part of reaching a

consensus. To the May 23 conference, to which the member and his

seatmate are most warmly invited and will receive invitations, my hope

is to get both points of view in the one room at the right time. To the

degree there are differences I'd like to try at that time to bring them

together. I want the member to know that if within that community we

can mollify the concerns of those who think that closing the store is a

mistake and produce a community consensus, then I think the branch

should be listening very attentively and very closely. I think there's

a far greater chance we will act in that direction. It's a very open

process. That's what we're trying to do.

Just for

background, I thought you should have that. If you're free that

morning, I hope you can be with us. Failing that, I will very much

appreciate your advice privately if you can give it to me.

MR. SKELLY:

My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs. It also relates to some of the unhealthy side-effects of the

liquor trade. At this point, I'm a little more concerned about the

international trade in liquor and liquor commodities. One of the

problems we have is that in many Third World countries, as the minister

knows, a large portion of agricultural lands is turned over to cash

crop commodities. Many of these commodities — sugar and other things —

are based on the liquor trade. The very fact that this land is used for

those commodities — sugar and liquor products — results in a loss of

domestic food production in those countries and increased poverty and

malnutrition for the citizens of those countries, many of whom work in

the fields producing sugar and agricultural commodities used to produce

liquor. In addition, the foreign exchange generated from selling liquor

to countries and to provinces such as British Columbia is often used to

buy arms in order to repress those same poverty-stricken and

malnourished people who work in the sugar fields to produce liquor

which Canadians and British Columbians purchase. Now I do have a

question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I hope

he is paying attention.

When the New Democratic Party

government was in office we felt it was important for the government of

this province to express their concern about the conditions of

apartheid in South Africa and the way that white minority government

treats its large black majority, to deal with this issue by refusing to

shelve South African wines and liquors, and in fact to make it a

necessity that British Columbians who support the system in South

Africa would actually have to request the wines and spirits from that

country, rather than this province demonstrating its support for the

system of apartheid by displaying those liquors on the shelves.

question to the minister is on the policy of the Social Credit

government with respect to South African wines and spirits. Do you

display South African wines on the shelves in liquor stores and thereby

indicate that the province of British Columbia has no objection to the

system of apartheid in South Africa and to the fact that the Republic

of South Africa is illegally holding the country of Namibia contrary to

United Nations resolutions? Or does the present government require

people who support that kind of system and that kind of illegal action

by the Republic of South Africa individually to

[ Page 5476 ]

request South African wines rather than having the government of British Columbia display those wines on its shelves?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Chairman, the policy of the government and of the liquor

distribution branch with respect to product offerings in our stores is

basically to provide to consumers a wide range of product choice, and

certainly products on our LDB shelves are displayed on virtually a

worldwide

section basis. Now before I get to the question particularly

of South African products, may I say that all of those products, to

stay listed, must survive some reasonable test of consumer support. The

listing committee meets twice a year; in its arsenal of material are

the computer printouts as to products which are purchased and those

which are not, products which are gaining in popularity and products

that are falling in popularity. Certainly apart from any political

considerations, if products from a particular country — South Africa or

otherwise — are not receiving the level of consumer support that would

allow them to stay on the shelves, they will be delisted.

the particular case of South African products, I think there are

probably 11 now offered in our stores which pass the basic criteria

required of all international liquor products to be on our shelves. We

offer those and we do not, as part of our practice and policy in liquor

listings, make international political decisions of the type suggested

by the member for Alberni. The reason for that is very simple. We think

that the consumer has a free and open right so to do. In the first

place, nobody is forcing or compelling consumers to go into our liquor

stores and buy liquor at all.

But secondly, for those who

choose to, no one is compelling them to purchase a South African

product. They can exercise freely, if they wish, their consumer choice

or non-choice, based upon their individual view of what's good or bad

politically about a product. They are free so to do. But we think it's

incorrect to practise a form of selective international political value

judgments whereby we in certain cases list and delist on political

grounds. Certainly it is not the case that the consumers in this

province are given only the choice of certain types of products only

coming from South Africa. Within ranges — be they wines, ports or what

have you — if the consumer freely so chooses and wishes to choose a

South African product, we believe that should be his choice. Equally it

is open for that particular consumer, if he or she prefers, to

alternately choose a similar type of product but from a different

country.

We simply don't think we should be in the political

selective international ethic or value-judgment situation. We can cite

all kinds of examples not limited to liquor. The issue arose under the

previous government of B.C. Hydro ordering generators made in Russia

when Mr. Williams was Minister of Lands and Forests and responsible for

that Crown authority. You can go back and forth and select all kinds of

examples not limited to liquor. In any event, Mr. Chairman, that is our

policy and those are the reasons for the policy.

MR. SKELLY:

Be that as it may, the simple fact is that the United Nations, of which

Canada is a member state, have voted sanctions against the Republic of

South Africa for the way in which a small white minority in that

country compels a large black majority to remain in certain parts of

the territory; they deprive them of certain rights of citizenship and

rights of national status. The minister talks about consumers in

British Columbia being free to choose any type of wine, spirit or

liquor they please, yet the nation whose products we're talking about

imposes upon the vast majority of its people a regime in which they

have no right to choose one way or the other. They impose on them

passes, restrictions on their travel and conditions of living that we

in this country and people in any democracy would find abhorrent. This

has been recognized by the United Nations in the fact that the General

Assembly has voted for trade sanctions against the Republic of South

Africa. The minister is saying that the consumers of British Columbia,

through the availability of those liquors on the shelves of the liquor

stores, should have the right to choose one way or the other, rather

than to accept the sanctions which have been imposed against the

Republic of South Africa because of the inhumane way they treat the

majority of their citizens.

Another fact that we have to

consider is that liquors are often traded in the international market

in order to generate foreign currencies, which governments such as the

South African government use to purchase arms with which to repress

that same black majority that has no choice — such as the consumers of

this province have — to decide one way or the other whether they want a

system of government, a way of life or even one type of wine or spirits

over another. Is the minister saying that it is the policy of his

government to allow that kind of thing to happen in spite of the

sanctions imposed by the United Nations?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I'm not saying that. It is clearly the case that if British Columbians,

and in particular a significant number of them, wish to exercise the

kind of non-choice that the member suggests, they may do so. I can

assure him that if the consequence of the exercise of that choice is

that those products fall below that basic level of support necessary to

stay as listings on the shelves, they’ll disappear as listings.

MR. SKELLY:

As far as the government of British Columbia is concerned, I gather the

minister is saying that it doesn't really matter what's happening in

South Africa one way or the other.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

That is an absolutely absurd extension of what I said. It's not what I

said at all. If the member wants to produce a shopping list of items,

ranging from Russian vodka to hydro-generators, from when his

government was in power, we can go through the same kind of argument.

That's not what I said at all.

MR. SKELLY: The

minister has missed what I said. The United Nations General Assembly

has voted that this nation, among other member nations, embark on trade

sanctions against a country that does not respect the human and

political rights of a vast majority of its citizens. I'm saying that

British Columbia, as a province of a member state of the United

Nations, should at least take the same position. In spite of what the

minister has replied to my earlier question, I gather that this

province does not take that position.

MR. BARBER: First of all, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. Bruce Hill, who I see in the gallery opposite. He's a cellist

[ Page 5477 ]

and

pianist who plays in the orchestra which I have the privilege of

conducting. He will be at rehearsal on Sunday and in attendance at a

concert the evening of Friday, May 22, at 7:30 p.m. at the Saanich

Silver Threads centre. Thank you for coming and letting me give the

plug. It will be a benefit for the restoration fund at the Jewish

synagogue in Victoria.

However, I'd like to discuss briefly,

if I may, within the duties of the minister, the policy now being

considered that might see the sale of wine and beer in grocery stores.

I'd like to report to the minister that a week ago Friday I met with a

delegation of some 15 independent merchants, all of them in the retail

grocery trade in Victoria. They were in our office primarily to talk

about theSunday shopping law and the problem with the crazy quilt of openings and closings in greater Victoria.

Towards

the end of the meeting I asked them if they would tell me how many of

them wished to see beer and wine being sold in their shops. To my utter

amazement, every one of them said: "None." Every single one of these

roughly 15 merchants in greater Victoria — many of whom I know to be

honest and reasonable guys, because I've lived here all my life and

have family connections with them, and friendly ones as well — said

they did not want beer or wine to be sold in their stores, and would

refuse it if they possibly could. They would refuse it and encourage

their fellows to refuse it. Two of them especially made the case with

considerable conviction that they have themselves seen the results of

alcohol abuse so often in their own families, among their own

friendships, their own employees and in Victoria at large that they did

not wish to be held personally responsible for any more of that. I

admit I was quite startled by that; because my presumption had always

been that because it is profitable, presumably it would therefore be in

the interests of these private entrepreneurs — who are honest people,

earn an honest buck and run a good business — to do that sort of work.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Alex doesn't agree with you.

MR. BARBER:

That's right, there is disagreement, and I've learned something in the

last couple of weeks that I didn't know before. What I learned from

these people — and I was very glad they came into the office....

HON. MR. HEWITT: What about the rest of the people?

MR. BARBER:

I'm only reporting on the ones I met with; I can't comment on the rest.

I'm just giving you the opinions expressed to me — with greater

conviction and vigour than I expected — which said unanimously among

this group of roughly 15 business persons in the capital city, that

they want nothing at all to do with it, and they offered a number of

perfectly persuasive and important reasons for that. I said I would

raise the matter on their behalf in these estimates. I encouraged them

to get in touch with the minister directly. They may have done so by

now; if not, I hope they'll do so shortly.

It strikes me

there are a couple of tests which this policy should meet. There are a

couple of questions the government should answer before they and others

of us who are now having second thoughts, including myself, might

choose to endorse it. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or

not he has available such information as would demonstrate what

happened in another and comparable jurisdiction when they switched —

when they went from state or Crown distribution to some shared

distribution through private enterprise, be it grocery stores or some

other means. In particular, what happened in regard to per capita

consumption either by gallon of wine or ounce of spirits? Is there

information available that could demonstrate to the committee that by

opening up the system of distribution you are not thereby simply

creating a larger and potentially more abusing group of alcohol and

wine drinkers? The first test is, surely, to find out whether or not

there is precedent elsewhere that might instruct us; if there is, it

would be extremely useful to have that.

Secondly, again

based on the study of precedent elsewhere, I wonder if the minister

could answer a question that was put to me by these grocery store

owners from Victoria. They put it very bluntly. They said: "Look, when

the age was lowered to 19, for all practical purposes in most bars in

B.C., that lowered it to 17." Everyone knows that 17 year-olds get into

bars freely in British Columbia — those are guys. Girls — who often

look much older than their real age — can get in at 15 and 16, and that

too is well known. What happens if you lower the age in a grocery store

where the clerk himself might only be 16, 17 or 18 years of age? His

friends come in on a Friday night when the owner's away and say: "Come

on, Jerry, sell us a six-pack; sell us this or that." What kind of

restraint, what sort of example and what lessons can we learn from the

precedent elsewhere that tells us that is not, in fact, a real problem?

struck me that these grocery store owners were thinking through in the

most practical way the possible administration of this policy when they

said: "Look, I hire teenagers who work late hours and on the weekends

in my shop. Their friends come in and they might want to buy cigarettes

and bread, but what happens when they want to buy booze?" They're

probably under-age too, although they might not look it. As friends

they can certainly apply a sort of peer pressure, a pressure that no

one else could apply, and that might result in the improper and

unwelcome distribution of booze to kids who are far too young to handle

it properly. They said: "Tell us, what do we do about that? Do we fire

all our teenage clerks? Do we make sure they don't have any friends? Do

we make sure they're not subject to any of that? How do we protect

ourselves from that?" Then they went on to worry about how they protect

themselves in the eyes of the law if, as a result of those pressures

and for other reasons, they end up inadvertently breaking the law — not

on purpose, but in consequence of a policy which might not, in fact, be

thought out quite as clearly as it could be.

Thirdly, I

wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not we can learn from

experience elsewhere about the rate of abuse and the increase of it in

the adult population. Everyone knows France has the highest rate of

alcoholism in the world. I should tell the minister that for a period I

served as the first manager of B.C.'s first Alcohol and Drug

Commission. I served as a commissioner as well, and we had some

considerable debate. We had an opportunity among ourselves to learn

over a period of some years how it worked elsewhere. One of the

arguments made to us by credible, responsible and basically learned

people is that, in other jurisdictions, the simply and mindlessly

wide-open system of wine, beer and spirits distribution has led to

simply horrendous and, as it turns out, unstoppable abuse.

Those are the three questions — if you will, Mr. Minister, the three tests. First, if you go to wine and beer in the grocery

[ Page 5478 ]

stores,

does it increase general usage in the population? Secondly, the

particular problem of underage users of alcohol might, in fact, be

worsened because of the practical circumstances involved when you go to

the corner store and your friend, with whom you are in grade 11 at

Victoria High School, is behind the counter and no one's around and you

want to buy beer. Is he going to turn you down? Not likely. The third

question is the relative incidence of abuse — all of the standard

measures by which we assess alcoholism and the related problems of

improper consumption. Those, to me, are the three fundamental questions

of policy and the three fundamental conflicts that all of us have in

dealing with this issue.

The same tests might well be

applied to the current government liquor stores, by the way. And well

they should be. I don't in any way wish to let them — or us, as their

managers — off the hook. Nonetheless, if we propose a new policy for

whatever reasons we may think good, civilized and to the prosperous

advantage of the merchants themselves, those three questions have to be

answered. I appreciate that the minister may not be able to answer them

today, but hopefully, before a final decision is taken on the policy,

such answers will be provided.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I

found those comments very helpful. I must say to the first member for

Victoria that I'm also finding, as I go into this part of the

discussion in policy, that there are a lot of surprises — attitudes

coming from people that you frankly wouldn't expect. That's part of

getting into something and looking at it.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Perhaps

I can answer best by putting the question of beer and wine in stores a

little differently. As I now assess it, the three major questions that

have to be assessed in coming to a recommendation are as follows. The

impact on price to the consumer is one because, clearly, it seems to

me, if a move is to be made in the direction of beer or wine in stores,

distribution costs to the winery or brewery must therefore rise.

Presumably there is going to be an impact on consumer pricing. Wearing

a Consumer Affairs hat, that's a very major question for me, although

not necessarily the first.

The second is, very obviously,

the impact on consumption and abuse. We do have some comparative data.

We are getting more. There is really a wealth of places to which one

can look — Newfoundland, I think, most recently. There were some very

good studies done in Manitoba under Premier Schreyer's government,

which I've looked at in some detail. Ontario, Quebec, Washington,

California — we're going to look at all of those. You've asked one of

the very key questions, which is the impact on consumption and abuse.

One of the puzzling things is that here in British Columbia, with a

so-called government system in the area of wine consumption and in the

absence of any so-called privatization, wine consumption per capita is,

by a long mile, far higher than any other province in Canada. Although,

with hard liquor and beer, as you doubtless know, it is somewhat

similar.

The third question is enforcement. The kind of

question that you raise is: if you took policy in this direction, what

are the enforcement problems, big and small — the kind you raise —

particularly in the small stores?

Those are the questions

that are very much in our minds. I wanted to tell members — hopefully

humorously — that in my research so far one of the most lively things I

found was a very small piece saying that Governor Carey in New York was

about to embark on a rampant program of privatization. It was a little

wee piece in the paper. Gathering, I think, that next year he's up for

re-election, I was puzzled as to why, in that very complicated state,

he would be taking such a revolutionary step, until I got some more

clippings and learned the reason for this wide-open policy. He was

reported as saying that they were going to open up the marketing of

liquor in New York state 24 hours a day, any kind of store that liked

it, big or small, and any kind of product — hard liquor, wine, beer,

you name it. The policy rationale was very surprising. Governor Carey

is so frustrated in his efforts to get rid of all the bootleggers who

are doing a land-office business that he's decided to beat them at

their own game. He feels that by getting into competition around the

clock with them, with great consumer convenience at normal prices, he

will solve the bootlegging problem. That I found to be an interesting

part of my research. I thank the member for his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).

MS. BROWN: I've been waiting for hours.

MR. LEVI: You've been waiting for hours! I've been waiting for days! No, go ahead, Rosemary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam yields to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: I guess that's what happens when the Chair keeps changing its spots.

think that we've actually touched on the crux of the matter when the

minister established his priorities in telling the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber) that the first thing he takes into account is the

cost. That's wrong. I think that that's a real problem we have about....

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

On a point of order, I indicated very clearly in that sentence no

necessary order of priority. I was very careful to say that. Because

it's an issue I take very, very carefully, I would very much like to

reconfirm that I made that very, very clear.

MS. BROWN:

I'm very glad to hear the minister say that, because I was very

concerned when he started out, first of all, by speaking about the

cost. I don't believe that the real cost we pay for alcohol abuse can

be measured in dollars and cents. In fact, I think that one problem

we're having is because we're so schizophrenic about the whole business

of consumption of alcohol. We have one ministry which has

responsibility for encouraging the consumption of alcohol, and we have

another ministry which is responsible for discouraging the consumption

of alcohol. So at the taxpayers' expense we have two ministries going

in opposite directions. What really concerns me is that the ministry

responsible for the consumption of alcohol really has no

responsibility, and is not held responsible for the incredible price

people pay, or that society pays, for the consumption of alcohol.

I don't know what the latest figures are, but some statistics that I have here certainly indicate that British Columbia

[ Page

5479 ]

has the highest increase in consumption of alcohol

in all Canada; that in fact wine consumption increased by over 107

percent; that on the whole, alcohol beverage consumption increased by

43.1 percent; that beer consumption went up by 43.5 percent, and other

spirits rose by something like 74.3 percent. The statistics go on to

talk about death by cirrhosis of the liver and the increase in the

number of problem drinkers, alcoholics, homicides and incidents of

family violence — all directly attributable to alcoholism. In all these

kinds of social and human ways we as a society pay for the abuse and

overuse of alcohol. At the same time, we find that the budget of the

Ministry of Health — which is responsible for discouraging the use of

alcohol and is supposed to educate us not to overuse or abuse alcohol —

is so limited that when alcohol abuse is increasing, a number of the

services that deal with alcohol abuse are closing their doors because

there is no funding.

For example, the Connection Society in

Vancouver is a crisis facility dealing with various drug-related

problems, but most of its clients were involved with alcohol abuse.

They found that they had to close their doors because there was no

funding to carry on their work. But this is not the responsibility of

the Ministry of Consumer Services; their responsibility is to encourage

the use of alcohol.

We also found that the Gillain

Foundation was unable to carry on, to their satisfaction, the job of

dealing with alcohol abusers. It is a foundation in Sidney, B.C. They

had to close, yet all the information we get from the ministry....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. So many people are advising me.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough. They came back last year and asked for funding, and they were turned down again.

Aurora House....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Again, I'm just wondering if maybe the

specific references the member is making would possibly be best covered

under, for example, the Ministry of Health.

MS. BROWN:

No, no. I'm directing my comments specifically to the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'm saying that there is some

discrepancy between the amount of money his ministry generates through

the encouragement of the use of alcohol and the amount his government

puts into treating people who overuse and abuse alcohol.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I can appreciate the comments the member is making, but

while the first part of the question is most valid under this ministry,

the second part of the member's address must be related more under the

Ministry of Health. Simply relating the one to the other does not allow

us to canvass under one ministry an item which must be canvassed under

another. I'm sure the member was just making brief reference to that

and was about to deal with the estimate before us.

MS. BROWN: Actually, Mr. Chairman, the whole thrust of what I have to

say is to the minister responsible for encouraging the use of alcohol — as to

whether he has no compunction about the fact that a larger amount of the money

which comes into his government coffers through the sale of alcohol is not set

aside to discourage and educate people into the use of alcohol without their

actually abusing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, again I can appreciate the member's concern, but we are

now in a debate which deals only with the responsibility of the

minister who is presently before us. Now the member is canvassing an

item that might be covered, say, in Finance or in the Ministry of

Health. I'm sure the member can draw the line that the Chair must draw

in debate. Otherwise we could canvass virtually each and every

minister. I would ask the member to bear those points in mind in her

debate.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I understand your

dilemma, but since the funds are generated by this minister, I really

feel that this is the minister to whom I must address my concern. You

know, when we read the statistics about the increase in alcohol

consumption and abuse in this province, when we see the briefs which

are prepared by the Indian homemakers, for example about the terrible

price that those families pay as a result of alcohol use and abuse....

It doesn't seem to make any sense to talk to the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen). He is not the minister responsible for encouraging

the use of alcohol. This minister is the one responsible for

encouraging the consumption of alcohol.

I'm saying to the

minister that we have a dilemma here. I start out by saying that we're

kind of schizophrenic, because what happens under our system is that

one minister is responsible for pushing the stuff, and another minister

is responsible for discouraging it. I think that the minister who is

responsible for encouraging the use of alcohol should have some

thoughts on that and should have some comments to make about the whole

idea of the overuse of alcohol. When he talks, for example, about

exploring the possibility of placing beer and wine in corner stores,

making it more available, in fact he is is exacerbating the problem.

When you put beer and wine in corner stores you have, for all intents

and purposes, wiped out the age limit. As my colleague the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) says, the whole question about not being able

to drink until you're 19, 18 or 20 or 21 is irrelevant at that point;

it will now be sold across the counter.

When we have the

kind of statistics that we have in this province about the increase in

alcohol consumption and in alcohol-related problems — homicide, family

violence, child abuse, neglect and suicide, those kinds of things....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Drinking-driving.

MS. BROWN:

Drinking-driving. Surely the minister should be taking those kinds of

things into account, as well as the cost to the distributor or for the

handling of the beverage, as the case may be. That's all I'm trying to

say. It doesn't make any sense for me to go to the Minister of Finance

and complain about that. It doesn't make any sense for me to go to the

Minister of Health and complain about this. I have to complain to the

minister who is responsible for finding new and innovative and more

interesting ways of selling alcohol. And I have to be able to say to

this minister: the price that we're paying for that, the price that we

pay if you really do a good job and manage to push a large amount of

alcohol on our society is a price that can't be measured in dollars and

[ Page 5480 ]

cents, and it's a price we can't afford. Now am I under the correct ministry?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, you make it very difficult for the Chair, because as it

has been pointed out, we're virtually covering the Ministry of the

Attorney-General, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of

Health. I think if there's a guideline we could use, it would be that

the minister whose estimates we are currently discussing is responsible

for the sales and marketing directly, and only that aspect,

whereas the

results of the sales and marketing and the problem areas that the

member is referring to would more appropriately be canvassed in the

other ministries that were also mentioned.

MS. BROWN:

What I would like to do then is to express to the minister my very

grave concerns about his activities in the sales and marketing of

alcohol and to bring to his attention the incredible increase in the

abuse of alcohol by women, for example, in our society as a result of

his sales and marketing techniques. For a variety of other reasons that

abuse is on the increase. As a result of the sales and marketing

techniques that he's considering, it will become even easier for that

abuse to increase. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the services to

deal with the end result of the great success of his sales and

marketing techniques are not there. The commitment to fighting that is

not there. I pointed out a number of societies, including Aurora House,

which is the only one dealing specifically with the woman who abuses

alcohol and which is continually under financial restraints. I hope

that when the minister thinks about the sales and marketing techniques

of alcohol he will also think of the incredible price that children and

other people in this society pay for the over-use and overconsumption

of that particular commodity.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Just

to assure the member, as I said at the outset of my remarks, maturity

and moderation are going to be the twin guide-posts of policy-making in

the ministry while I'm minister. I stressed at the outset of my remarks

that no decisions in this direction have been taken. In fact these are

very lively questions in the minds of the public these days. I think

government has some responsibility to at least examine the question. So

far as I know, no member in this House, with perhaps the exception of

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), is yet on record

in support of beer and wine in stores. In the 1969 general election I

think the party of the member opposite had a policy of beer and wine in

stores. As of today this government is adhering to existing policy. I

repeat it again: no policy change has taken place. As I've been on

record saying, it's an area where no policy change will take place

unless the most compelling and persuasive of reasons suggest it should.

Many of us share your concerns.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I

have the honour to be recognized. I was interested in the remarks of

the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) when he was decrying the sale of

wine from South Africa. I join him in decrying that factor. It is not

the place for this House or this area, because I want to say to him

that international trade has many devious ways to travel. I'd like to

know where our lumber ends up. A great deal of it may end up in South

Africa. I'd like to also add that a great deal of uranium from

Saskatchewan ends up in South Africa. The benefits of international

trade travel hither, thither and yon. It's difficult for this House to

attempt to control or decry it. I do not think we should make political

points on that factor, because it is beyond our province and our

responsibility.

I would like to join with the words of the

hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes) when they say how bad the use of alcohol is on the

public and how damaging it is to our society. They went into a great

litany of facts which are correct and true. But I would like to remind

them too at this time, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), that it was only the beginning of

the decade of the 70s when this same Social Credit government passed an

act forbidding the advertising of tobacco and liquor. That act was

repealed by this opposition. I want you to know, and it should be on

the record of this House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The whisky companies got to them. That's what happened.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The whisky companies got to them. In their election campaign of 1972

they so readily promised, for a few votes, to repeal that act the

minute they got in. And almost the minute they got in, they did. Are

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) and this party sincere in what they say? Are they prepared

today to recall the act of 1970? I ask the minister if they are

prepared to put that act....

The thrust of discussion in

this House from our side was that we did not wish to dictate to the

public what they should drink or smoke, but we want to stop the pushers

of alcohol and tobacco. Yet we had opposition. I can remember the

Leader of the Opposition appealing to the gallery on how we were

destroying the democratic system. Member after member attacked the

position because it was popular to attack it. They were playing to the

gallery and the press. Today the member for Skeena and the second

member for Vancouver Centre call for the act again. What are they

saying? That party has talked from both sides of its mouth. I wish they

would make it clear where they stand.

Do they wish to outlaw

the advertising of alcohol and tobacco — or alcohol alone? If they wish

to do it, let's hear about it now, instead of talking sanctimoniously

about what terrible damage it is doing. Yes, it is doing terrible

damage. Yes, it is causing family breakups and it costs hundreds of

millions of dollars every year to repair the damage alcohol does.

Certainly he's right. But are they prepared to stand up and make a

statement that they erred when they recalled

an act that should have

been put in place? Today they are saying exactly what we said ten years

ago. I do believe it's time they went on record and made their position

clear. To take the position of abhorring the use of alcohol and saying

that the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is pushing it....

That ministry is not pushing it at all; it is only being sold because

of demand.

I call on that opposition to make their position

clear. Did they make a mistake in repealing that act? If they made a

mistake, they should be honourable and say so. It's time they went on

record saying what they mean. Just ten years ago, for a paltry few

votes and for the purpose of defeating a government, they stood on the

side of the pushers of alcohol and tobacco. Today they stand on the

other side. Where do they really stand? That's the question I ask. I

hope it can be answered by someone.

[ Page

5481 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman when we talk about drinking it probably

brings out the hypocrisy in all of us. We don't admit to ourselves what

the reality of it is. As politicians we're exceptionally sensitive

because we feel that we have to hold out this holier-than-thou attitude

around drinking in order to seem plausible as politicians. I'm afraid

that about 99.9 percent of the population laugh at us — those who drink

and those who don't drink. They voted by a majority in the United

States a number of years ago for prohibition. It was a lesson in subtle

democracy that although the majority of people voted for prohibition,

the minority felt so strongly that it wasn't deemed to be democratic,

the general will of the people wasn't deemed to be served by the

prohibition of alcohol in the United States.

I think that if

the minister would do some research he'd find some pretty startling

statistics. I stand to be corrected because I've done some cursory

research in this — by no means definitive research. But take a number

of government ministries and see what we pay in this province for the

effects of alcohol: take the Attorney-General's ministry and the

policing, the courts, the jails that have to be paid for; take Human

Resources and family breakup. Seventy-five percent of the Health budget

is to serve the effects of alcohol. I strongly suspect that if our

budget is approximately $6.5 billion this year, the people of British

Columbia, out of their taxes, will be paying in the order of $2 billion

— and I think I'm being conservative — to pay for the effects of

alcohol. We could cut taxes considerably if we outlawed it. I believe

it's more than that. That's not taking into account ICBC, lost

man-hours out of the economy and all of that.

But we are not

here to dictate to the people of this province. The society we live in

condones alcohol, and they want to continue to do so. I think if you

took a referendum in this province you'd find that very few would want

us to put a prohibition on alcohol. So what we're doing is dealing with

the reality, but we feel so damned guilty about it. It's an incredible

subject. You go down to the United States, and go into a restaurant,

and look at the breakfast menu, and it says: "Hangover Ham and Eggs,"

"Feeling Uptight Muffins," and "Dehydrated Cornflakes." The whole

breakfast menu says: "Have a drink at breakfast time and don't feel

guilty about it".

We haven't got to that stage, and I hope

we don't in this country. Even though we drink outrageously, I think as

Canadians we have a deep-seated guilt complex about doing it which

makes us sort of schizophrenic when we're dealing with the topic of

booze. Neighbourhood pubs are basically, I think, a disaster — whether

we do it or whether you do it — because by the time we politicians get

through with all of the regulations on what we'd like to see in those

pubs, it's uneconomic to run the pub. You can't make a buck out of it.

I mean, it looks nice on paper: 15 square feet for the orchestra, 30

square feet for the pool table. We forget that the person who's going

to run it has to make some money, and by the time they get finished

with all the bureaucracy, they can't.

I go down to

California or other states and there are some terrible taverns, but

there are some good ones, from my bias. Maybe someone else would think

that the terrible ones are the good ones and that the ones I think are

good are the bad ones. But at least they have their choice of where to

go. Why don't we call a spade a spade? The reason we're fooling around

with neighbourhood pubs in this province is because we're afraid of the

hotel lobby and what they can do to all of us as politicians.

Even

if you take a look at the regulations — and they say that if there's a

hotel within a hundred miles, don't put in a neighbourhood pub........

I mean, it's just absolutely ridiculous — the whole damned thing! We

say to ourselves, "If there were a referendum. we'd have booze in the

province, " and if we're going to have booze in the province, why don't

we make the atmosphere around it as pleasant as possible, so that it

won't be only drinking but also some social involvement surrounding the

drinking? Maybe we won't get the kind of excess we now get.

think that if you go into a square room that's absolutely abhorrent in

terms of the decor and have a bunch of round tables with terry cloth

covering them, then the only thing to do in there is to drink. You

can't hear what anybody else is saying anyway. So you may as well

drink. It's probably the most uncivilized way of drinking — the way we

do it in British Columbia in the beer parlours. I don't think that

people really want that kind of thing. Who doesn't enjoy going to the

United States and going to a nice tavern? Herb Bruch, maybe. I just

think that we are regulating, legislating and doing all of that to the

people who are in the business because of the guilt that we feel as

Canadians around the whole drinking thing. I think it's about time we

realized the truth and the reality of it and started to do something

worthwhile.

The first thing we could do is forget the

hotels. They've had a monopoly on booze in this province since the

beginning, and they'd like to keep it that way. But is it what the

people of this province want? It's obvious that if you're only going to

get a licence to serve booze if you have the required number of rooms,

then you're confining those who are going to sell booze to people who

are already wealthy. There'll be no "mom and dad" operations in that

kind of situation. We continue to make the regulations around

neighbourhood pubs, which is our endeavour to bring in a tavern system,

but we don't quite have the guts to do it. If we're going to have

neighbourhood pubs, then why don't we just ease up a bit on some of the

regulations that make it impossible to put in a pleasant, nice pub that

would be economic? You can't do it under the regulations. I'm surprised

that anybody has applied, whether they're friends of the Socreds or

anybody else, because I find it very, very difficult to look at a pub

and see where it can be economic with all the stringent rules

surrounding it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask Norm!

MR. LEA:

What is this — a socialist, free-enterprise argument? Why don't you

guys get together? Do you all agree on it over there? I'm sure you

don't. I'm sure you don't all agree on it. But one thing I think we all

agree on is that we have this crazy, stupid guilt complex surrounding

booze which is driving us to drink more in our society. That's all it

does — and in pretty abhorrent conditions.

I've done my

share of drinking, and I've seen the most drinking on Sunday when

everything's closed. That's when the real boozing goes on, that's when

it really happens. It takes you until Thursday to sober up.

MR. KEMPF: Now you're going too far.

MR. LEA:

I've gone too far, eh? I'm playing with another little sacred thing in

our society. Either get out of it altogether — I'm talking about the

neighbourhood pubs — or let us have

[ Page 5482 ]

some sort of competition, in terms of not only the price but also the kind of environment you're going to drink in.

There

are certain things I think should be government-run. For instance, I

think utilities should be government-run. I think the telephone

company, because it's a monopoly and a utility, should be

government-run. I think that the transportation systems in our province

should probably be government-run.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forestry?

MR. LEA:

Forestry, no. But let me tell you, when I think of the government

supplying food and all the things we do in a social way.... I don't

want any bureaucracy serving up my food, and I don't want any

bureaucracy serving up my booze, because all you're going to get is an

absolutely sterile kind of environment around those things.

What

are we going to do about it? Do you know what we're going to do about

it? We're going to do exactly nothing, because neither political party

is willing to take it on. The minister is going to continue to regulate

how many square feet for the piano in the pub; and if we change

government, the minister will continue to regulate how many square feet

for the piano in the pub. I just find it incredible that in 1981 in

this province we have the situation we have around drinking. First of

all, we admit we do it and that it's harmful to us as a society. But

it's one that society has decided it wants to do.

I think we

have an obligation to lead in one respect. I think we have an

obligation to at least lead our young people by educating them to the

problems of using drugs. Alcohol is probably the most pronounced

scourge, in terms of drugs, that we have in our society, and I think we

have an