1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 1169 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates.

Motion to report progress. Mr. McGeer — 1169

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1169

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1169

Mr. Chabot — 1169

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1169

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1170

On vote 11.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1170

Point of order (food in the House). Mr. McClelland — 1177

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1177

Mr. Chairman's ruling on point of order — 1179

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1180

Mr. Smith — 1182

Mr. Bennett — 1183

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1183

Mr. Bennett — 1183

Mr. Chabot — 1184

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1184

Mr. Chabot — 1185

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1185

Mrs. Jordan — 1185

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1186

Mr. Bennett — 1186

Mr. Wallace — 1186

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1186

Mrs. Jordan — 1187

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1187

Mrs. Jordan — 1187

Mr. Morrison — 1187

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1188

Mr. Morrison — 1188

Mr. Fraser — 1188

Mr. Gibson — 1188

Mr. Phillips — 1189

Mr. Fraser — 1189

Mr. Gibson — 1192

Point of order (Hon. Members out of their seats). Mr. Curtis — 1192

Mr. Gibson — 1192

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1193

Mrs. Jordan — 1193

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1194

Mrs. Jordan — 1195

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1196

Mr. Gibson — 1197

Mr. Phillips — 1198

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1198

Mr. Bennett — 1198

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1199

Mr. Bennett — 1199

Mr. McGeer — 1199

Mr. Phillips — 1200

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1200

Mr. Bennett — 1202

Mr. Phillips — 1203

Mr. Chabot — 1205

Mr. Smith — 1206

Mrs. Jordan — 1207

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1211

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1213

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1214

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1216

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1217

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1974

The House met at 6:12 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

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

the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would refer the Hon. Member to standing

order 44:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole

House, shall be of the opinion that a motion for the

adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or

that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the Chair, is

an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may

forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may

decline to propose the question to the House."

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't see how we can

debate the Attorney-General's estimates without the

Attorney-General.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): He'll be back.

MR. McGEER: We didn't set the hours of the House. Quite obviously he's

not here, and it's no abuse of the rules of the House to move the committee

rise when the man whose estimates we are discussing is absent. The abuse of

the House is to continue the debate in his absence.

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

point of order on the same point, the Member opposite indicates

that we have been debating the Attorney-General's vote for the

last number of hours. I contend that we have not been debating

the Attorney-General's vote, and particularly that Member, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, I have not ruled any of the discussion

that has taken place this afternoon out of order. Furthermore, I consider that

the motion that was put to move to have the committee rise at this time just

after we sat is an abuse of the rules. Therefore I will refuse to put the motion.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, the

House Leader sets the hours which the House will sit, and he

has the responsibility to ensure that while we're debating a

Minister's estimates, the Minister is here. Mr. Chairman, it's

my understanding that the Attorney-General is on a television

programme. If he's going to be on a television programme we

shouldn't have been sitting at this particular time. I think

the House Leader has lost complete control.

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

control.

MR. CHABOT: He should have called the House for 7 o'clock if

his Attorney-General's going to be on television, instead of

being here to debate the estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We started this evening

actually five minutes later than suggested by the Premier when

we adjourned some 15 minutes ago, when there were five Members

of the government backbench present and two cabinet Ministers.

If, under those circumstances, you will refuse the opposition

which was here.... With the exception of our Tory friends,

almost every one of us was here. In fact, I can say that every

one of us is here who is in the opposition. Now, if under the

circumstances you find that the government can have all their

people out of the room and the Ministers can be out of the

room, and then you take away our right to even have a motion to

adjourn, I find that absurd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair has made a ruling

that he considers that the motion that the committee rise and

report progress and ask leave to sit again is an abuse of the

rules. Therefore I refuse to put the motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: I challenge your ruling.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's a mockery of

parliament!

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): That Member talks about

the rules. He's the worst offender there is!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have first here to

[ Page 1170 ]

deal with the report from the Chairman on the matter of a

challenge to his ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in Committee of Supply, shortly

after we met, without any other business having taken place,

the first person to rise in his place moved the committee rise

and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and I refused

to put the motion because I ruled that it was an abuse of the

rules under standing order 44.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall the ruling of

the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 16

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I think you are suffering

from hypoglycaemia, and this is the reason you're having

problems....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for your diagnosis. (Laughter.)

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On vote 11.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're delighted to see that there are

more than the two cabinet Ministers and five backbenchers than

were here when the debate in committee began a quarter of an

hour ago.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Are you going to repeat yourself

again? You've been repeating yourself for five days now. Aren't

you tired of that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to touch upon a

subject which has been given no prominence whatsoever so far in

this debate. The subject of alcohol.

Under the Attorney-General's department, he is responsible

for the functioning of the Liquor Control Board. He is also

responsible for the enforcement of legislation with respect to

alcohol abuse. I think it is appropriate at this time that we

say a few words about the subject.

To start with, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read to you just a

few words from a flaming headline from that Vancouver

newspaper, the Vancouver Sun , that starts off: "Barrett

Toasts Drinking, European-style." The date is Friday, June 15,

1973. It occurred after the last estimates of this department

were discussed. It starts off by saying:

"Fresh from the beer halls of Munich and sidewalk cafes of

Paris, Premier Dave Barrett said Thursday he's ready to relax

liquor laws to let British Columbians drink European-style.

"Barrett said he was so impressed by the operation of public

drinking places during his recent trip to Europe that he's

dropping his objections to pubs and taverns in B.C.

"The Premier told a press conference that he has told

Attorney-General Alex Macdonald about his change of heart and

indicated Macdonald will start considering legislation to

introduce a European approach to drinking in the province."

We haven't heard very much from the Attorney-General on this

proposal. Very little indeed. A few words, of course, but very

little.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): You were out of the

House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've been listening so closely, Mr.

Attorney-General, to the squawk-box when I'm in my office. I

have not been, as you have been, on television and taking your

time away from the House as happened earlier this evening.

MR. LIDEN: You walked out of the House when you couldn't

have your own way the other day, and you missed it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: According to this report:

"This would include sidewalk cafes serving liquor,

entertainment in pubs and a more casual, family atmosphere in

drinking spots.

"Barrett's previous objection to relaxation of liquor laws,

although contrary to official New Democratic Party policy, had

been seen as a major stumbling block to substantial

changes."

So much for the party!

[ Page 1171 ]

"The Premier returned Wednesday from a three-week tour that

took him to Ottawa, New York and European capitals. It was his

first trip overseas.

"'I will admit publicly that some of my ideas about taverns

have altered,' he said in a press conference.

"'I visited some pubs and I visited a wine garden and I

visited a beer garden and some taverns.'"

Boy, he sure was busy. I wonder how many.

"'As you know, I have always resisted development of

that particular type of facility.

"'I think (now) there is a lot to be said for the European

approach to the use of alcohol. And I have already said to the

Attorney-General this morning that the barriers that I had

against the development of pubs and taverns and a different

approach to the outlet of liquor have been lessened

substantially.'"

The poor old Attorney-General gets it in the neck again.

"'In Paris, the sidewalk cafes are just fantastic, just

fantastic,' Barrett said.

"'My resistance to these things has dropped. I think

they're very attractive. I think there's room for it in B.C.

now, I really do.

"'I was impressed, very impressed.'

"The Premier said that when he visited a beer hall in

Munich, he sat next to two tables where families were enjoying

an evening out together.

"'At one table was a young family with three young

children. They were eating their supper, enjoying the music and

sharing in a very gentle evening of passing the time with a

family in a way I had not seen before.

"'And I think it is most appropriate that the youngsters

had a very calm, rational, mature experience in dealing with

alcohol in a setting that involved food and music, and not just

guzzling beer.'"

Well, there was much more to the same effect. For brevity's

sake I won't read it all. But the essence of it was....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, certainly I'll carry on if you would like more,

Mr. Member. Anyway, there's another comment here which goes on to say: "Most

of the impetus for liquor changes has come from the Attorney-General. With the

Premier now backing him up, changes of a more sweeping nature should not be

too far off." Well, that was the major result of many thousands of dollars of

public money being spent in Europe. We, of course, have heard of other things:

B.C. steel mill, other things. Of course, nothing really materialized and, indeed,

there has not even been any major change in the liquor legislation. And I wonder

why.

I would just like to read from another

article of the same

time, from the Alberni newspaper, of my own views, and I said:

"Barrett's Booze Views Gets Cautious Support, Says Anderson."

The headline also says: "Anderson predicts Tory demise,"

and I assure you I was not anticipating the statement of the

hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) a few days

ago when I made that.

We're in a situation now where the Premier is on record,

last summer; the Attorney-General has been instructed to get

out there and change the law and improve the liquor legislation

of British Columbia. Those of us who have been waiting and

listening and who are interested in this have not seen anything

at all. And I would like to know why. After all, the

Attorney-General was the one instructed by the Premier to get

onto this and do it.

I think the proposals of the Premier started off from a

point of, I would say, innocence or ignorance. I don't think he

really understood what the issues are. That's why he got only

cautious support from me. I realize the liquor laws need

amending, need changes. I realize improvements can be made.

But I would like to bring a few facts to the attention of

the House, and particularly the Attorney-General, who has been

charged by the Premier with the duty of not only carrying out

the administration of the Liquor Control Board but also

bringing in new laws, none of which are before this House,

Therefore I can comment at great length, Mr. Chairman, on the

whole subject under the estimates of the Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I could read some of these quotes

fully, if you would like, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, now I wonder whether I'm part of this

grouping.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I wouldn't be unkind. After all, we

have backbenchers now in the government party trying to ditch

their leader. I assure you, the comments of the Hon. Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) were most revealing. It is obviously

a major subject of discussion. I'll be questioning and

commenting on this at a more appropriate time, Mr.

Attorney-General. There's a group in the backbench trying hard

to find a new leader. Who knows, they

[ Page 1172 ]

may choose you, but I doubt it. Nevertheless, it is always

possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, and I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I keep

getting distracted by the suggestions of the Attorney-General,

this lovely prospect of a change of Premier by way of a

backbench coup. It seems likely....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They're looking at the Chairman for

leader? Is that so? Are you, Mr. Chairman, a candidate for

leadership? He certainly doesn't say no.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I quite agree that I would be far better

than what you have now. But I have my principles. My colleagues

over here are a great deal more attractive than your colleagues

over there. So I'm staying where I am.

Marijuana and alcohol. A short time ago it was reported,

namely three or four years ago, that 20 per cent of students in

high schools had tried marijuana. There was a public outcry.

Yet, at the same time we have the fact that 80 per cent of

students in high schools are on another drug, namely alcohol,

and there was a collective yawn. People were not interested at

all.

There was no talk at that time about alcohol being a drug,

no talk at all. What there was was simply relief that the kids

were no longer on marijuana, but they had picked the drug that

their parents appreciated, namely, alcohol. And if there was

ever complacency which is undeserved, it is complacency on the

subject of alcohol. It is a drug and it is impinging more and

more on our lives, and causing more and more problems.

Mr. Chairman, some years ago there were fairly distinct

forces at work in the Province of British Columbia, and

elsewhere in North America, on this subject. On the one hand

there were the temperance groups — I have here correspondence

from the Women's Christian Temperance Union — and on the other

there were the brewing interests. So, you have two arguments,

or at least two forums — two groups dedicated....

AN HON. MEMBER: You need union control.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't control that union.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Anyway these two groups were dedicated to

the two distinct philosophies: one to the total eradication of

alcohol; the other to the expansion of sales.

It was intriguing, when I looked into this matter and did

some research, that the father of the present Attorney-General,

then a prominent politician from British Columbia, was involved

in much of the discussion in those early years. Indeed, it's

probably not amiss to point out, Mr. Chairman, that a

government of this province was elected on a platform of

prohibition in those early years of this century. It was a

major question in the Province of British Columbia. It was a

question, indeed, that swept the polls on one occasion.

Curiously enough there was so much abuse because of the use

of alcohol for medicinal purposes — and I know the

Attorney-General has read enough history of this era to know

what I'm talking about. Finally, of course, prohibition was

repealed.

In any event, there were two distinct groups, both arguing.

In the argument, in the adversary system, came out a great deal

of fact and information on the abuse of alcohol. Unfortunately,

Mr. Chairman, since that time the relative strength of one of

the parties has been substantially eroded — that is, of course,

the temperance movement.

Now, I'm not here speaking on behalf of the temperance

movement. My regret that it's gone down in strength is only

that the discussion which previously took place about the

effects of alcohol has now stopped because there is not a group

which is active, organized, well-financed, vocal and militant

on the one side. There is none at all.

Admittedly the other side — the brewing interests and the

distilling interests — have reduced their propaganda in favour

of their products, have moderated their stand; they have

changed their approach and they are not doing the type of thing

that we saw, for example, in the 30s in Britain where there was

a major campaign during the depression period to encourage the

use of alcohol by children or, I should say, by sub-adults —

people under 21. We're not seeing that now but still there is,

unfortunately, no voice speaking up on the other side. And

tonight, because it's the Attorney-General's estimates and he's

responsible for liquor, I'm going to say a few words about the

other side of the coin.

So, most people today, Mr. Chairman....

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): What about

Alcoholics Anonymous?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, certainly. The Minister of Human

Resources mentioned Alcoholics Anonymous, and I would just like

to spend a few moments on that.

I appreciate the fact that he's raised this because

[ Page 1173 ]

they are a very good group, do excellent work, mostly within

their own membership and mostly with respect to one of the most

unfortunate groups in our society — and I really appreciate the

fact that the Minister of Human Resources has raised this — namely, the alcoholic, a person who is, well, hooked on

alcohol the same way as we've heard of people being hooked on

drugs in the debate earlier today.

The AA is a very important organization and I for one would

like to applaud the work they do in this province and elsewhere

in North America and the world. They're a first-class

group.

But what they do, and I think the Minister of Human

Resources would agree with me here, is not get out and crusade

against alcohol in the way the temperance union did.

AN HON. MEMBER: They work anonymously.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My colleague keeps stealing my lines.

(Laughter.)

The whole purpose of this group is to prevent a stigma being

attached to people who wish to get out there and solve their

own problems with respect to alcohol. It's a self-help

organization; one that I greatly admire and I wish them well.

But I think that the Minister of Human Resources would agree

with me that it's not the type of organization to carry out the

public debate that I have indicated should be carried out. This

is one of our problems today: we have many people who will

speak on the evils of drugs; many people who will speak about

heroin; many people who will speak about misuse of marijuana or

other drugs, but very few, really, that speak on the abuse of

alcohol.

Now I realize that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is

not very interested in this, and he's making facetious

comments. But he should think of the numbers of man-days and

woman-days lost to the work force of British Columbia due to

the effects of alcoholism. It's one of our major problems in

the marketplace.

I would suspect, indeed, that it probably surpasses strikes

in this province as an impediment to the proper functioning of

our industries. We always hear a lot about strikes but a

subject such as alcohol and the effects of alcohol, the ability

of alcoholism and even social drinking to reduce the

effectiveness of the work force, to lead to absenteeism and

other labour problems is something that I'm surprised the

Minister of Labour has not already talked about in this

Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. But when it comes to your estimates,

Mr. Minister of Labour, perhaps I'll tell you a little about this too because

you're clearly totally in the dark about this. But we're on the Attorney-General's

estimates, and if you Ministers would like to let me continue, I'll return to

my speech.

In the course of this evolution and the disappearance of the

temperance groups, we lost a podium, a forum, for discussion of

the whole problem of alcohol; the "drys" have been obliterated

in effect by the "wets". There were powerful economic forces

which were alluded to, most appropriately I thought, by the

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) earlier

today when he talked about some of the problems and influence

of the large distilling interests.

So there are powerful, economic forces who can realize a

tremendous advantage by selling as much alcohol as possible to

anyone who can pay the price and who, Mr. Chairman, can profit

by the saturation of our society.

The fact is: most British Columbians and most Canadians

drink responsibly; they enjoy a drink; they're aware of the

problems of drinking too much and they drink with caution.

However, we have to bear in mind certain facts. Canadians at

the present time drink 30 per cent more alcohol than we did 25

years ago — 30 per cent more. We drink it in more locations, in

more situations and in greater varieties — the martini

lunch.

MR. LIDEN: Harvey doesn't drink 30 per cent more.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The martini lunch is a social phenomenon.

We drink alcohol at younger ages, Mr. Chairman. And I'm glad

you're in the chair, Mr. Chairman, because as a member of the

clergy, a man who has taken a considerable professional

interest in human problems, I think you might understand some

of the difficulties about which I am talking here. You've had

to deal with people who have had their lives destroyed by

either their own drinking or that of other people. I appreciate

the fact that you're listening so intently.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few figures here. We have in Ontario,

a province approximately 2.5 times our size, 300,000 persons

who drink enough alcohol, approximately nine ounces of whisky

or its equivalent in beer and wine, every day to increase their

risk of contracting organic diseases such as cirrhosis of the

liver. Of the 300,000, half have reached the state of alcoholic

illness.

Now, we know that alcoholism is a problem much more acute

and severe in the Province of British Columbia than it is in

the Province of Ontario. We know as a fact that this problem is

much more acute in B.C. and we can confidently expect a minimum

of 60,000 such people in British Columbia today suffering from

a disease, and yet the Ministers of the

[ Page 1174 ]

Crown seem to find this of no interest. Well, as they don't,

I'll have to continue, Mr. Chairman, because you at least are

paying me the courtesy of attention.

Of the entire adult population, 86 per cent of all males and

75 per cent of females drink. A substantial number. These are

the potential victims, the potential alcoholics, the people

with potential alcohol problems.

In other words, we must define what is at stake, Mr.

Chairman, in terms of economics, in terms of health, in terms

of social disruption if our society continues its headlong rush

to emulate the so-called civilized, continental style of

drinking of other nations.

We very often hear of this continental style of drinking

promoted by people who have returned from a three- or four-week

holiday in Europe, especially in France and Italy. I think the

Premier of the Province of British Columbia on his first trip

abroad certainly falls in that category. We've seen nothing

else come out of that trip except the typical touristy

statements.

They report that the French and the Italians always seem to

be sipping wine or some other beverage, that they do so

practically at all meals, and alcohol is integrated into the

normal, daily life of the people of those countries, and that

hardly anyone appears to be drunk. Now, doesn't that appear to

be similar to what the Premier said when he came back? That's

right, that's the traditional, simplistic, touristic approach

of people overseas who run into the different styles of

drinking, the different lifestyles of continental countries for

the first time.

Consequently, we hear, as we're heard from the Premier,

repeated pleas to free up our drinking restrictions, to allow

for more drinking at sidewalk cafes and sporting events, to

allow alcohol at picnics in the parks, and to promote alcohol

as a means of inter-family communications by serving wine at

meals to even younger children than are presently served.

Now this all seems sensible to these people, Mr. Chairman.

It appears to be a reasonable compromise, if one can accept the

basic premise, that these drinking styles collectively are as

innocent as they seem. But the facts, Mr. Chairman — and I'm

sure you're aware of this because of your interest in human

problems — are brutally different from the casual observations

which holidaying tourists bring back.

Mr. Chairman, in France the average citizen drinks almost three times as much

alcohol as a citizen of Ontario, and more than three times as much alcohol as

a citizen of British Columbia. He drinks approximately 25 litres of absolute

alcohol a year compared with somewhat over 10 litres of absolute alcohol in

the Province of British Columbia. Now France is a country where drinking is

considered a social function. It's integrated into a daily fabric of life where

wine is almost essential. It's essential with meals, family functions, at gatherings

or any type of social function.

But it is because that style of drinking leads to alcoholic

saturation that the French get the problems they do. There is,

after all, only so much a person can drink, just as surely —

and I'm sure the Premier knows this — as there is only so much

a person can eat, or so many cars he can drive. There is a

saturation point, and this is not to be forgotten.

In case anybody is concerned or doubtful about this question

of saturation, may I just point out that in the past two

decades, when Canadian alcoholic consumption has been shooting

up, in France it's increased only 1 per cent. In other words,

an alcoholic saturation level of a society had been reached in

France at least a generation ago, many years ago. It's still

the highest in the world, but it has only increased in the last

two decades by 1 per cent. The reason is, of course, that

alcoholic saturation of a society had been reached.

You've got to remember too that alcohol in the form of wine

is cheaper, as a measure of disposable income, in France than

almost anywhere else in the world. There was a very fine CBC

programme on that, Mr. Chairman, that I'm sure you saw. The

price of a glass of Coke in Paris is 40 cents; the price of a

glass of wine was under 25 cents, depending on what type of

wine you went for.

It was a very interesting, I think a half-hour or hour-long,

documentary on the problems of alcoholism. It really sparked my

interest in this because I must say that I too perhaps have

been too much of the casual tourist in my approach to alcoholic

problems in other European countries.

So there are few legal restrictions. I believe there is a

bar in France for every 280 people — that's every 280 men,

women and children. I believe that it works out to something

like one person being engaged in peddling liquor....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just one minute.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Attorney-General's been

generous enough to suggest one minute. I know that this is a

subject close to his heart and I will just chat, Mr. Chairman,

a little more freely with you perhaps rather than follow my

formal text.

Remember that in France, again, one out of 86 of the work

force is actually peddling liquor and a total of 4 million

Frenchmen, out of a population of, I believe, slightly under 50

million, are in one way or another in the alcohol business.

It's an enormous proportion of their work force, of their

population. It's an enormously interesting situation.

I give these figures. I know that some people on the

government side don't look exactly happy about

[ Page 1175 ]

them. I give them because we in the opposition realize that

when a tourist like our Premier goes abroad at public expense,

it's important when he comes back, if he's failed to learn the

true lesson of what goes on in France, for us here in the

Legislature, we poor peasants who are left behind and have to

pay our own way whenever we go on trips, it's up to us to point

out there were certain things that happened in France which he

in his high-level zipping around there, first-class hotels,

chauffeur-driven cars and the rest of it, was totally unaware

of. That's why I am glad the Attorney-General will shortly be

back because I would like to continue on the subject.

The average consumption in Canada has gone up 30 per cent,

as I mentioned earlier, from over 25 years ago. We're not

alone. In Austria it's gone up by 127 per cent, the Netherlands

by 111 per cent and West Germany by virtually 200 per cent — a

substantial increase. So this is the order of magnitude that

we're talking about.

It's fine to talk about French sidewalk cafes, but the

French situation is unique in Europe. We cannot assume that we

can import their social institutions and attitudes over here

and expect to get away scot free. There may well be things we

can learn from them; but, as I've indicated to you, we simply

cannot bring in, holus bolus, French drinking styles based on

the false premise that somehow they don't have an alcoholic

problem. They have one; they have the worst in the world, and I

will shortly give you illustrations of this.

In France again, cirrhosis of the liver: the death rate in

that country is the highest in the world, six times higher than

in Canada — six times higher. This is a thoroughly unpleasant

disease. It is a fatal disease for many people. In a society

where you have this saturation drinking, you have six times the

number of deaths from that cause than we have here.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is not

in his seat, unfortunately, but in France 42 per cent of all

health expenditures in France are attributable to the handling

of alcohol-related diseases — 42 per cent.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Here we all die of boredom.

MR. LIDEN: That's just when you're speaking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member feels that he will die of

something else. I'm sure he will. I'm sure he will. Well, so be

it.

So this is the other side of the coin. In B.C. the effect, in terms of our

social health and our economic cost, of the present level of alcohol use is

serious and it's far more serious than it's generally thought. I don't think

we have to use alarmist tactics to dramatize the growth of the use of alcohol

and the even greater growth of the impact of the use of alcohol. As you go up

on the scale, your problems get more numerous. If you double the number of bottles

consumed, you don't double the number of alcoholics; you perhaps triple or quadruple

it.

If you double the number of litres of alcohol consumed, you

don't double the number of people who die of cirrhosis of the

liver; you perhaps triple or quadruple that. So you can see

we're on a rising curve, Mr. Chairman. You increase the use of

alcohol and you suddenly reach the problem areas in the upper

scale of the graph, and the Attorney-General, I'm sure, agrees

with me there.

So I just think we should start looking at what has happened

over there and see whether we want to find out whether that's

what's going to happen in B.C.

Now I'd like to refer you to two studies that have succeeded

in placing the problem of alcohol abuse into perspective, Now

neither the LeDain Commission on the non-medical use of drugs

nor the United States National Commission on Marijuana and Drug

Abuse were established to deal with the question of alcohol

misuse.

MR. STEVES: What's that you're drinking?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But in the course of the research done in

the whole field of drug abuse the two commissions, both acting

independently of one another — I think this is an interesting

point when we discuss the conclusions of those two commissions — came virtually to the same conclusions — the pre-eminent one

being that alcohol misuse is by far the greatest drug problem

in North America today. Alcohol abuse is by far the greatest

drug problem — not marijuana, not heroin; no problem with

poppies in Turkey on this one. It's alcohol...grain, rye,

grown on those great Canadian prairies. This is the problem

that is the greatest one that we face in this country

today.

MR. LIDEN: What have you got against the grain farmers?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So I think that we both have to realize —

and this again has been commented upon quite well, I felt quite

learnedly, by my friends from Langley (Mr. McClelland) and from

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) — that when you start getting

into related problems, when you start getting into

alcohol-induced crime like drug-induced crime, you really start

getting into difficulties.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) is here and he knows of the tremendous problem of the

drunken driver, the tremendous number of people who are

mutilated, killed, disfigured as a result of the drunken

driver.

[ Page 1176 ]

That's what I call an alcohol-related problem; it's not the

problem of alcohol itself. We in North America with our

high-speed vehicles, our use of the family car, are

tremendously subjected to the misuse of alcohol, because, of

course, we drive so much more than other people.

So as a final point, may I point out to the Minister that

the Canadian Medical Association, in its general assembly,

pointed out that the No. 1 drug problem in Canada is

alcoholism, and urged all its member physicians to double their

efforts in this regard.

Now I have a few figures from Ontario which, by the way, has

far the best statistics — far the best. I'm sure that the

Minister responsible for statistics in British, Columbia should

get after his Ottawa colleagues in the DBS because Ontario

seems to be far better than the rest of us in this area, and

I'm using their statistics.

In 1969 in Ontario 22,600 people between the ages of 20 and

70 died. Those who died after the age of threescore and 10 were

presumed to die of natural causes, I guess. In examining the

records of these deaths, there was an involvement of alcohol

which was even greater than anticipated.

I'm quoting here from a study done.

"The data based on an analysis of coroners' reports showed a

range of alcohol-associated illnesses that goes far beyond the

illness indicator usually associated with alcohol,"

which is, of course, cirrhosis of the liver.

"Of these deaths in 1969, 38 per cent of the cirrhosis

deaths were due to alcohol. But we found that alcohol was also

implicated as a cause in 22 per cent of peptic ulcer deaths,

18 per cent of suicides, 15 per cent of pneumonia deaths, 16

per cent of deaths due to cancer of the upper digestive and

respiratory tracts, and more than 5 per cent of the deaths due

to heart and artery disease. In addition, alcohol was involved

in 45 per cent of deaths by poisoning, 43 per cent of

accidental fire deaths involved alcohol and almost 25 per cent

of deaths were due to falls and other physical trauma."

Of the total number of deaths in that year, 11 per cent were alcoholics. In

effect, the study found that the alcoholic, Mr. Chairman, had twice the chance

of premature death than had the non-alcoholic person. Now, this is pretty significant.

We've got to consider the cost of this illness and death in terms of personal

anguish and disturbance, and it just cannot be quantified in terms of dollars

and cents. It's something that you would understand, Mr. Chairman, well beyond

any monetary calculation. But we can quantify some of the direct health and

social costs of alcoholism by calculating the proportion of costs attributable

to alcohol-related problems in the public general hospital system — the mental

hospital system — under social legislation known as the Family Benefits Act,

and through the Children's Aid Societies.

Research found that in terms of health and social costs,

alcohol-related problems are responsible for more than 10 per

cent of the expenditures in general hospitals, more than 15 per

cent in mental hospitals, approximately 20 per cent under the

Family Benefits Act, and 30 per cent of expenditure of

the Children's Aid Societies — a tremendous proportion, in

particular with respect to children. Just think of the damaging

effect there.

The Ontario taxpayer, based on '71 figures, paid $89 million

to the hospital insurance plan for illness related to

alcoholism, and he paid $17 million through the mental hospital

system, $9 million through Family Benefits Act and $11

million through Children's Aid. And the figures in this

province are worse.

So we have a situation where we are facing an enormous

problem. I should add, just for the benefit of the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), that over 50

per cent of motor-vehicle deaths are related to alcohol and,

indeed, might well be considered due to alcohol problems.

So we're now in a situation, Mr. Chairman, where in a

democratic society, of course, it's the majority's decision

which ultimately governs in the case of social action. No

government, no study group, no elitist group of people in the

social sciences — no group acts independently of the public for

long, although I must say the present government's doing its

best. If the public wants greater access to chemicals such as

alcohol, if it wants the freedom to drink in the parks and

picnic grounds or, on the other hand, if it wants to ban them

from public functions, well then the public's representatives,

which are ourselves, will have to submit. And that's the nature

of democracy.

The important thing to remember is that the facts of the

problems related to alcohol are not being properly brought out,

and that's the purpose of my intervention in this debate

tonight. The decision about how to respond to the growth of

alcohol misuse or, in fact, whether to respond at all is one

that has to be made in the minds of individuals. Hopefully it

will be made on the basis of the best information available. I

for one am dismally disappointed in the Attorney-General's and

Minister of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly'

s) failure to inform

people of the problems involved.

If we're to serve society in the most responsible manner, I

think we've got to take some steps to encourage debate. People

must know the consequences that they're going to face in terms

of economic, health and social costs if we continue on the

present course to make alcohol an essential component in our

everyday lives. In all the literature about alcohol and its

use, there's no more thoroughly researched area than the

relationship between alcohol

[ Page 1177 ]

consumption levels and alcohol-related damage.

MR. STEVES: What about the relationship between alcohol and

boring speeches?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Without exception, nations that have a

high alcoholic consumption level have the greater prevalence of

alcohol-related illnesses. The more people there are in

society, even though most may drink moderately, the more

alcoholics there will be and the greater the incidence of

alcohol-related damage. There's simply no country in the world,

Mr. Chairman, where this equation has been upset.

So if liberalization means, and it does, the greater use of

alcohol and greater prevalence of disease and death as a

consequence, we've got to start considering what changes such

as those proposed by the Premier of the province, encouraged by

the Attorney-General, and given guarded support by myself, add

up to. We've got to consider alcohol in sidewalk cafes and park

picnics, which seem innocuous enough themselves, and what might

eventually result as a consequence of that type of

liberalization.

I'm amazed that a social worker such as the Premier, who

constantly repeats his great days as a social worker, didn't

discuss, when he came back or with the Attorney-General or at

any time since, the relationship between his superficial,

tourist-inspired ideas to the whole problem of social policy

and the whole social area. He didn't do it, and thus my

intervention to encourage the Attorney-General to do it

instead.

The development of social policy does not begin and end with

the isolated action such as licensing a specific social club,

beer garden, sidewalk cafe, or anything of that nature. It is

dependent upon an integration of all these actions into a

discernible pattern and into a clearly developed thrust. Even

though it may seem backward and perhaps negative to hold the

line in extending the liberalization in certain isolated cases,

I think it's important to realize that you can't talk about

isolated cases when you're talking about alcohol, alcohol

problems and alcohol-related diseases.

I think it's imperative for people to know the role that

alcohol could play in their lives — the whole picture, not just

parts of it. I think it's imperative for us to inform a public,

which is largely unaware of the potential consequences, of the

consequences of their decisions, and I think it's important for

the Premier as political leader of this province to get away

from the tourist approach and get down to something which would

be more responsible, something a little closer to what we would

expect from a man of his background.

One of the issues is the policies controlling the number and types of outlets

as well as control of the hours and days of sale. I've had quite an interesting

letter from a William Wallace in Vancouver:

"I have read and noted your opinion in the Sun and the

change of attitude on liquor by the Premier. After many years

of assorted drinking here, in Europe and the U.S.A., plus a

period with the Vancouver Traffic and Safety Council, I and we

came to the definite conclusion long ago that we need first of

all a reduction in the alcoholic content of our beer from 9 to

3 per cent, as in the State of Washington and all the way to

California."

He may not be right, but I'm giving his views because I

think they're worthy of consideration.

"Next to this is the return to the closure of all beer

parlours from about 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. That's to get rid of the

potential alcoholics and break them up and send them home for

supper."

This is done in Britai n with the pubs. That's where that

famous phrase comes from that the Attorney-General knows so

well: "Time, gentlemen, please."

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on previous occasions when

this House has been forced to sit through the supper hour, it's

been brought to our attention that no Member is allowed by the

Speaker to have food in this House. The Speaker has made that

ruling. Now either we're going to turn this place into a

McDonald's hamburger joint or we're going to have some dignity

in here. (Laughter.) I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the rules

must be kept the same for every Member of this House. Now, if

it was necessary for the Attorney-General or anyone else to

eat, we could have adjourned this House for a supper hour the

same as any other normal business procedure would have done. I

want your ruling on that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the matter has been

drawn to my attention and I have sought guidance from the

Speaker. I anticipate this shortly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I didn't really think this

was normal hours of the House, but I've had the food removed.

Okay? Let's go on. On with your speech.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If the Attorney-General, whose estimates

we're considering, does not feel these

[ Page 1178 ]

are normal hours of the House, may I request that we return

to the normal hours of the House? He has made perfectly clear

the government's intention as was done earlier this week. We've

had government by exhaustion, legislation by exhaustion; now we

have it by starvation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! The complaint is

a valid one. The point of order was well taken and the food has

been removed. I would ask the Hon. Second Member for Victoria

to continue.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the point is, Mr. Chairman, is the

Attorney-General to get away with his talk about not normal

hours? Why are we sitting here?

MR. STEVES: You're filibustering, that's why.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not normal hours. It's impossible for us

to break for supper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This has been determined by the

normal course of the business of the House. It is not for me as

the Chair or for the Attorney-General or for the Hon. Member to

question. The House has made the decision and we must abide by

it. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will cease

questioning some of the absurdities of the way this House is

run, but I guess that's the responsibility of the House

Leader.

I was talking, Mr. Chairman, before the food of the

Attorney-General was removed from the chamber, about the

possibility of a break in pub hours to get the lads home. The

hope is that this would serve the same function as a similar

break has in the British pub system: to break up the drinking

pattern, to encourage people who are sitting at the bar, having

an extra drink and perhaps dawdling there, to get home for

supper or at least to get some food. It's the system which they

have in Britain and it apparently has served some purpose

there.

Mr. William Wallace from Vancouver, who wrote to me on June 20, 1973, proposes

this as well. I think there's something there. He goes on: "This is the way

they do it in Blighty. Pubs over there, as here, are for getting drunk in. Strictly

not 'Pig & Whistle.' " He goes on to say,"This is what your party should

favour. The benefits and accident prevention alone would be startling and earn

the gratitude of many people." I don't know whether Mr. Wallace is a member

of my party or any other but I admire his letter and thank him for it publicly

and urge other parties to consider it. I'll go back to the text of my speech.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I was just commenting.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said you were going back to the

text.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm just glancing at the text of my

speech and I'll raise my head up from it from time to time

after refreshing my mind. I'm not allowed to have any food or

coffee. Mr. Chairman, is it correct to have coffee cups in the

legislative chamber? I wonder whether we could have this matter

settled?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue his speech?

I've sought the guidance of the Speaker and I expect this

shortly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could you please get me a cup of coffee?

I would like a cup of coffee as the Attorney-General has a cup

of coffee. I feel that if they're going to have one rule for

the government, they should have the same rule for the

opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! Would the Hon. Member continue

his speech?

MR. LIDEN: Send one of your Hon. Members out to get it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We come to the influence of the variety

of liquor on customs and styles. Then we go on to advertising.

I'd like to say a word or two about advertising.

There's no reason to believe that alcohol is any different

from any other product. In other words, it's advertised because

people want to sell more. No question about that. We've had

bills in this House brought in and slung out on advertising.

But it's to be remembered that advertising does encourage

consumption, and I just leave you with that.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, we had a statement the other day

by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would request that the Hon.

Members not interrupt the speaker.

MR. CHABOT: Control that Minister over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

[ Page 1179 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The lowering of the drinking age is also

another factor which has had an effect upon the amount

consumed. It also has had an effect upon the amount they

consume after the age of 21 as well as below it.

We go on to the application of more stringent, legal

sanctions on public intoxication. This has been studied very

widely in a large number of jurisdictions. Actually, it seems

to have little effect on the rates of alcoholism. In France and

Italy there is a high rate of alcoholism and a relatively low

rate of arrests for drunkenness, so there doesn't appear to be

a great deal of correlation between the two.

We've heard statements from time to time that people who

drink in moderation — beer drinkers or wine drinkers — should

be encouraged and hard liquor should be discouraged. I remember

a happy summer I spent in Sweden where the government had

adopted that policy. The government also owned a number of

vineyards in France and they had some excellent wines at very

cheap rates on their liquor shelves in the hope of persuading

people not to drink schnapps or Scotch or vodka or anything

else.

MR. STEVES: You should be in advertising; you'd discourage

anyone.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That man has great trouble finding

applause even from his own backbenchers. The fact is, however,

that the correlation between the soft liquors, beer and wine,

in alcoholism has been shown time after time not to be...

MR. STEVES: Your backbenchers are meeting secretly without

you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...a factor in the problem of

alcoholism. The fact is you don't reduce alcoholism and

alcohol-related problems by encouraging beer and wine. It just

doesn't happen that way and studies have shown it. In

Australia, Czechoslovakia and West Germany these studies have

been done. It's not the types of alcoholic beverage but the

total consumption of absolute alcohol that matters.

We now come to an interesting point. The research does show

that there is a correlation between the cost of alcohol and

consumption. I know the Attorney-General has been raising

prices like fury, and in this regard I guess he should be

encouraged for having done so. The data from many countries has

shown that where the cost of alcohol — and it's lowest, as I

mentioned, in France — in relation to the disposable income of

the person concerned is low, alcoholism is high. Where the cost

of alcohol is high in terms of disposable income, then alcohol

is less of a problem.

It's an important factor when we consider it requires a far

smaller portion of one's weekly earnings, considering the wage

levels and prices of other consumer goods, to buy a given

quantity of alcohol today than it has been for several decades.

From 1949 to 1969, per capita disposable incomes increased

enormously while the average price of liquor and beer in

relation to today's income in dollar value has actually

declined. There was a very minor increase in the price of beer

not so long ago, but I think if you cast your mind back in this

province there really has been almost no change.

I believe the man responsible was the former Member for

South Okanagan, the former Premier of the province (Hon. Mr.

Bennett), who was determined not to allow the brewers to

increase the price of beer. He felt, for some reason, they were

gouging or making excessive profits, and he made sure they

didn't get that extra money. Curiously, Mr. Bennett's efforts

to cut back on liquor profits led to increased consumption and

the result.... I notice the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) nodding and shaking his head and looking terribly

upset. My goodness, he didn't realize he was responsible for

that. He was a cabinet Minister at the time and probably never

took it up with the Premier. But in actual fact, the Premier's

attempts to have the price of the product kept down to reduce

the profits to the brewing companies resulted in higher

consumption. I'm sorry, Mr. Member for Columbia River, I can

see you're very upset, but all I can say is that studies

elsewhere have demonstrated the fact that there is a close

correlation between cost and consumption.

Alcohol today is probably cheaper than it has ever been and

society is becoming more and more conditioned to its use —

under greater variety of conditions. Society also seems bent on

pursuing policies that might ultimately lead to a saturation

point that is in existence in other countries. I mentioned the

example of France.

We've got a choice in B.C. We can allow this trend to

greater consumption to continue. This means we must develop new

means to meet the consequent health problems and the social

costs of related alcoholism, and we must develop new techniques

to handle the spread of alcohol-related problems. On the other

hand, we can work to curbing or even reversing the trends to

greater consumption. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think at this time I will allow the Hon.

Member the indulgence of finishing his cup of coffee. But

following that, I have received guidance from the Speaker. The

Speaker has indicated to me through the message that it is the

practice and tradition of the House not to have food of any

description in the House. Therefore, should it

[ Page 1180 ]

arise again in the future we will simply ask them to remove

any coffee cups, food, anything of that nature.

I would also point out that it is also the custom of the

House not to read newspapers in the House unless you're

intending to quote from them in a speech. Therefore, I would

request that the practice of reading a paper in the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have great difficulty, Mr. Chairman,

in educating some Members of this House. One on my left over

there, a left in every respect, is one of those who is constant

trouble to us. Nevertheless, I'm glad that he's dropped the

newspaper.

I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Chairman, about the coffee

cup. I just felt like a cup of coffee and, as we had already

broken the rules so flagrantly in the case of the

Attorney-General, it struck me that the only way of pointing

out that the rules should be enforced was for an opposition

Member to have a cup of coffee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might point out that in the past there has

been some latitude allowed Ministers whose estimates are being

considered. But strictly speaking, food is not allowed in the

House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we can appreciate the need

for latitude. We certainly didn't comment when the Hon.

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) had a sandwich in

the House and quaffed a cup of coffee as well. We didn't

complain at all at that time.

But when the House has run through the supper hour, when we

were given seven minutes off and the government can't even find

more than seven people to get back in the House when the

Speaker rings the bell, then we feel that perhaps the House

rules are not being properly obeyed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

return to his original remarks.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I realize that I

should return to it.

I will have to back up a page. We get a choice. On the one

hand we can allow the trend to greater consumption to continue,

which means that we must develop new means to meet the

consequent health and social costs of increased alcoholism, and

we must develop new techniques to handle the spread of

alcohol-related problems.

On the other hand, we can work to curbing or even reversing the trend to greater

consumption. I am not the Minister responsible; I throw this out for his consideration.

He wouldn't answer earlier whether we are going to have a soft or hard approach

to drugs. I wonder whether he would indicate to the House what the government's

plans are with respect to alcohol.

If we follow the first course, we are going to have to be

perfectly clear about the enormous health and social costs

involved. The misuse and use of alcohol is enormously expensive

to society. We are going to have to be realistic about those

costs if we continue this movement towards saturation. We

realize that this price will include: (1) a greater

appropriation on health and social welfare funds for the

treatment of alcohol-related diseases and the rehabilitation of

alcoholics.

(2) Greater demands on existing and projected hospitals and

medical personnel.

(3) An increase in the prevalence of alcohol-related

diseases and death that will most frequently show up in the

form of liver cirrhosis, heart disease, pneumonia, ulcers,

cancer of the upper digestive and respiratory tract, suicide,

homicide and fatal accidents.

(4) There will be an increase in the rate of alcohol-related

traffic accidents and deaths. We are going to have more people

killed on our roads. We are going to have more people picked up

by the new ambulance service of the province and taken either

to the morgue or to the hospital.

(5) There is going to be an increase in the cost of business

and industry. The Minister of Labour has left, but I mentioned

earlier the problems associated with the drunken or alcoholic

employee. I don't just mean the wage-earner; I mean there are

probably more alcoholic employees in business in the upper

echelons than there ever could be at the bottom, as a

proportion of the number. I bet you if you checked out the

board rooms of British Columbia, you would find far more

alcoholics there than you will find on the floor of the plant

or on the greenchain. You will find many more in the top

positions. That is a problem.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Have

they got lots of money?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, now, of course, if the government

is taking over those board rooms, we are getting more

alcoholics in the government service. There is no question

about it, Mr. Minister of Mines. We know full well that you are

concerned about this problem, and we appreciate your

intervention in the debate.

If we hold to the second option and seek to reduce the

impact of alcohol in our lives, then we must be equally frank

about admitting the difficulties of the past. We have a society

conditioned to a more liberal drinking attitude, and anyone who

runs counter to the trend will not be popular. Anyone who

recommends using any of the control mechanisms I have mentioned

will likely meet considerable

[ Page 1181 ]

resistance so long as the public remains uninformed about

the reasons for the action and the possible consequences to

health of our people if that action is not taken.

In effect, the government will have little chance of moving

ahead with social policies directed to reducing this

consumption unless the public itself endorses such policies. So

this is the step I believe would have to precede the imposition

of any external control: a big education programme. This is a

thing the province hasn't seen; something that I think the

Attorney-General should endorse and perhaps even lead. We have

got to create a climate in which steps that might be taken to

reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, to minimize the

destructiveness of alcohol, will be taken in a climate where

people have a clear picture of the increasing impact of alcohol

on society and the price we are going to have to pay for any

future liberalization.

This is a challenge which the educators and the

Attorney-General must face. It's an enormous challenge; it is a

challenge that can only be met with the full co-operation of

the Attorney-General's colleagues. We have to show the people

of the province what they can expect if the Premier's proposals

for continental drinking catch hold. We have to show them.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would you like me to repeat? Have you not

heard a word, Mr. Member?

The problem is that if you introduce the proposals of the

Premier you are going inevitably to increase the number of

deaths on the highways, you are going to increase your hospital

problems, your problems of death by liver complaints, cancer,

homicide, suicide. All those things are intrinsically bound up

in the proposals which the Premier has put before us when he

came back from Europe, when he had that glowing trip.

I believe he put this forward simply because he couldn't

figure out any other justification for spending the public's

money. He didn't produce any steel mills, and therefore he had

to say something which he thought was a grabber. He thought

that booze in public would be a grabber and therefore he

trotted it out.

He really waxed euphoric about those drinking systems. Yet

as a social worker he should probably have been even more aware

than I myself, a government civil servant prior to entering

politics, would have been. I discovered that social worker he

may have been, but his enthusiasm in that area is something we

cannot accept on this side of the House without grave

reservations.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come off it! What a bunch of hypocrisy! Why don't

you wait until my estimates? You're filibustering on a serious subject; you're

filibustering.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister

not to interrupt the speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Hon.

Minister is excitable. But the fact is that the Minister of

Health's estimates will come up and we can discuss some of the

programmes under his department. It is the Attorney-General who

is responsible for the Liquor Control Board. He knows that, and

he knows that that man over there, sitting there reading a

book, is responsible for liquor law changes.

HON. MR. COCKE: Do you want him to close down the liquor

stores, my fair-haired friend?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point or order. The

Hon. Member is in order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I can only inform the

Minister, who apparently is very unhappy, that in cases of

change of the law, he didn't get the ball; it was given to the

Hon. Attorney-General.

Let me repeat for the edification of the Minister the first

quotes I gave.

"The Premier told a press conference that he has told the

Attorney-General Alex Macdonald about his change of heart and

indicated Macdonald will start considering legislation to

introduce a European approach to drinking in the province."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was a very good cribbing. I would

like to hear it once more.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"The Premier told a press conference that he has told the

Attorney-General Alex Macdonald about his change of heart and

indicated Macdonald would start considering legislation to

introduce a European approach to drinking in the province."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he has been in order. However, should he get into

matters of proposing legislation then I would have to rule him

out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I haven't proposed

legislation at any point in my speech. I simply made the

mistake of quoting the Premier, which apparently has encouraged

you to draw me to

[ Page 1182 ]

order. I agree with you that legislation should not be

discussed, but the fact of the matter was that the Minister of

Health tried to pretend that the question of any change in our

law and the administration of the present law which the Premier

has clearly given to the Attorney-General should come under his

department. The Minister of Health is wrong, and I have no

better authority than the Premier of the Province of British

Columbia. He is generally wrong and he is wrong again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order.

Would the Hon. Member continue, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay, I'll return.

If I can return to that particular point, we have to show

the people in this province what it is they can expect if the

trend to this continental drinking, as proposed by the Premier

and as he instructed the Attorney-General, continues. The whole

point of my speech tonight on a subject of extreme importance

to the Province of British Columbia, a subject upon which

millions of our tax dollars are spent and upon which very

little has been said so far, is to urge caution, to point out

there are problems.

I am not here to give him brand new policies or recommend

them to him. I am simply giving him a list of problem areas,

pointing out to him that there are difficulties and suggesting

that when he finally gets around to working on the commission

the Premier of the province has given him to make changes in

our policies with respect to alcohol, he bears these points in

mind.

It is no joke, Mr. Chairman, when you have the hundreds of

millions of dollars that are devoted by our budget to attempt

to rectify some of the problems of alcohol and alcoholism.

There is no way that we can measure the human misery that is

suffered, and for us not to discuss the subject as important as

this at some length is, I think, just ridiculous. We would be

derelict in our duty if we didn't do so. I think the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) might well be able to contribute in

this debate, either in his own estimates or at the present

time. But to suggest that somehow this should not be discussed

here, when the Premier of the province has given this man the

authority to make changes in our system, is, I think, quite

wrong.

To point out the problems of the continental drinking situation, we cannot

hide behind the sanctity, if you like, of pure science and simply say that the

people concerned in this should simply hand out statistics and ignore anything

else. We have to realize that there is something that has to be done in an active

way in the educational field. We've got to use communications techniques that

are available to us in a most imaginative and innovative way possible, so that

we can give the people of this province the information they need in order to

make the wisest possible choice about the role of alcohol in their lives.

There is no question in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that without

this key component of education, the imposition of any external

controls would be quite useless.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't proposed this evening to be a

prophet of doom or to just simply outline the bleakness of the

situation. But it is my view and my intention to put before you

as realistically and factually as I could some of the

challenges that we in this Legislature, and in the province,

face if we intend to do anything about the deep and disturbing

impact that alcohol misuse is exerting on our social

fabric.

The use of alcohol has been with us for many centuries, and

a great many attempts have been made in the past to bring it

under control. We remember prohibition in the Province of

British Columbia. We remember prohibition elsewhere in this

country; prohibition in the United States. There are still

counties in Ontario that are dry — in Manitoba too, I believe.

There have been many efforts to bring alcohol use under control

and they have failed.

We have an opportunity, I feel, at the present time to start

again with this problem and deal with it. It is the biggest

drug problem we have. We have taken the first step towards

accepting the fact that alcohol is a drug, and the most widely

abused one in our society, but we have a lot further to go.

We have made in Canada, I think, progress in collecting and

assessing data on the real and potential effects of this drug,

and we now have the mechanisms of this sophisticated electronic

age to get this information through to individuals. It is only

the individuals, as I mentioned earlier, who can ultimately

decide, as much as we might think we can in this chamber, only

when they are with us can we have decent, intelligent, rational

and humane laws with respect to liquor.

It affects every citizen of this province. It affects every

one of their children. What we need now is not tourist reports

based on three or four weeks overseas. We need some

determination by the government to deal with this problem, and

to deal with it effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder at this stage if the Attorney-General

would like to comment upon how his proposals are going; how his

change in law is going; how the commission that he was given by

the Premier of the province in the summer of last year has

progressed, because there is no problem more pressing in this

related area of health and of law than this one. I believe the

province is owed a progress report.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, one of the

things I would like to have some information about from the

Attorney-General is the position of lay judges in the judicial

system in this

[ Page 1183 ]

province. I know that at the present time we have a number

of lay judges in the judicial process, that is, appointed by

the province in different parts and different areas of the

province.

Some of these people are very experienced judges in terms of

actual service on the bench in the courts. I would say that

quite often their experience and knowledge is superior to some

of the people who are newly appointed to the bench, even though

they may not have the qualifications in law. They certainly

have the qualification with respect to the way they process

law, and the fact that they can deal with certain types of

cases as well as anyone in the judicial process.

Now, one of the things that was brought up earlier today was

the fact that there is a greater variation between the stipend

paid a judge appointed by the federal court and a judge

appointed by the province to act in the Province of British

Columbia. It has also been brought to my attention that there

is quite a discrepancy between the amount that a judge is paid

in the Province of British Columbia if he's a legally trained

lawyer and seen service as a lawyer before being appointed to

the bench, and the stipend that is paid to lay judges in the

province.

I would think that the stipend should be measured and paid

upon proven ability, and no other criteria; not the fact that a

person happens to have a degree in law or not. If we are going

to use lay people, and I think in many cases they certainly do

an adequate service to the Province of British Columbia, then

they should be compensated accordingly.

I would also like to know the position of the

Attorney-General on this matter of an auditor-general for the

Province of British Columbia. It would seem to me that rather

than a conflict of interest Act, we should perhaps be looking

at the matter of an auditor-general. Certainly I know the

Attorney-General himself on many occasions has brought this

matter before the House when he sat on this side.

There's another matter that I would like to explore for a

moment, and that is the oft-stated position of the NDP with

respect to the appointment of an ombudsman for the province. In

the time that the NDP have been in office they have certainly

had adequate time to canvass this whole area and make a

decision. Certainly, as members of the opposition they were

vocal in the fact that this was one of the first things that

would happen with respect to the position of the

Attorney-General when they became government — that we would

have an ombudsman for the Province of British Columbia.

But to date we really haven't seen much progress in this

respect.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, I don't exclude any appointment at all; I

just want to know the position of the Attorney-General. It was

certainly a position taken by the NDP many times in

opposition....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It should be open to either sex,

shouldn't it? I don't want any male chauvinists over there.

MR. SMITH: I don't think there's any of that this evening,

Mr. Attorney-General. I have not even suggested that. I would

think that the position should be filled by the person who is

best qualified, be they male or female. Certainly I think it

would be someone who has senior experience, I would think, in

the field of law to operate effectively in that particular

position and appointment.

It occurs to me that these are things that the NDP over the

years have made statements about. It has been part of their

campaign platform, and part of their election promises. I would

like to know what the position of the Attorney-General is now

with respect to these three items that I have mentioned.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Peace River

was discussing the appointment of judges. I'd like to question

the Attorney-General, if I might, on a case in my own

constituency of South Okanagan: the policy of the

Attorney-General's department in the appointment of new judges

and the firing of judges.

I refer specifically to the case of Judge Hack who was fired

by the Attorney-General. I've been questioned by numerous

constituents from the Summerland area over the firing of Judge

Hack, and the appeals that have been made on his behalf. I

would like a comment of clarification on how these judges are

disposed of, how they're fired and how they're replaced, and

what the policy is of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking without

knowing each case, because we have in British Columbia perhaps

230 judges altogether — I'm not sure of the exact figure. But I

have not fired any judge since I became Attorney-General, so

your information startles me. I'll be glad to have a look at

the case.

You know, there are some areas in the province where we are

getting more trained legal personnel qualified as judges to

undertake the work. And to the extent that happens, it often

happens that a lay judge who was doing that work is not so

busily engaged as he was before. Maybe that's the kind of a

situation, but I'll be glad to have that checked into.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General: if that

is the case, what I would

[ Page 1184 ]

like is an elaboration of your policy in regard to lay

judges. These people, the lay judges, when they're fired, are

more legally trained people available? Do their years of

experience, and whether they've made competent decisions, stand

for nothing? What is the formula in this respect? What is the

policy?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we fired none. We have

offered to a lay judge, in some cases, a new position which of

course is voluntary with him. But as far as I know, no salary

has been reduced or withdrawn. Now, there may be a few that are

paid on the case basis — was this one of them? He's on

salary?

MR. BENNETT: My indication by letter was that he was fired.

That's what it says.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But he wasn't fired because I can't as

Attorney-General fire a judge. If I did, I would be undermining

the independence of judiciary which I spoke about earlier, and

I can't do that. If anybody says I have fired that judge, I

want to look at the case, because that should not be done.

MR. BENNETT: I'm not making the charge; I'm only passing

along a request for information as to how you do replace

them.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll look at it.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Let's see the evidence.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Member for

Shuswap, I'm not providing evidence, I'm asking a question on

policy of appointing judges in this province, and any question

that's asked, you worry about evidence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition address the Chair, please?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's nice to know, Mr. Chairman, that the

Member for Shuswap, after having spent so much time defending

the Premier, now feels obligated to defend the

Attorney-General. But really all I want is a policy

statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I recognize there are good questions,

put succinctly and well.

In the case of the judge you have mentioned, I would

appreciate having a copy of the letter or a memorandum, and I

will look into the case.

In terms of policy, the experiment we carried out in the Peace River country,

where we now have two legally qualified judges, have we not, Hon. Member? They

have, to a very considerable extent, taken up the work of the lay judges in

the North and South Peace. That is a desirable trend, but we have not fired

the judges that were heretofore working in that area. I think some of them have

been given jobs — and there will be room for them in the court system. That

is our policy. That's kind of "pilot" at the moment in that area. We're watching

to see how it works, but I'd like to see that probably extended to the rest

of the province.

MR. CHABOT: In pursuing the matter that has been raised by

the Member for South Okanagan, the Leader of the Opposition, I

was wondering if the Minister could tell us what predicates the

appointment. What are the qualifying factors? What are the

goalposts of the appointment of a judge of the provincial

court? Does politics enter the appointments? When a judge is

appointed to the provincial court, does his political

background have a bearing, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's got to have his card.

Mr. Chairman, under the Provincial Court Act the Judicial

Council in all cases receives applications of those who wish to

be appointed as provincial judges. I have not appointed anybody

that I can think of as a provincial judge who has not been

cleared and recommended by the Judicial Council of British

Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through the Attorney-General, do

you place ads in law magazines, or do you make it any sort of

an open application for the job?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, no ads because the legal

profession knows that this is one avenue in which they can seek

for advancement or public service, so I don't have to place

ads. But I have no doubt in the world that the chief judge,

Chief Judge Brahan, has probably approached people and asked

them if they would consider making an application through the

Judicial Council to be a provincial judge. We've actively

sought them out.

In the case of a particular name, I can't think of one...possibly just Judge Hart who was recently appointed. David Hart

was recently appointed, and he has a particular interest in

family law; he's been on the Canadian Bar

section dealing with

family and juvenile problems. We were anxious that he become

the provincial judge and work in the Berger commission pilot

project. So that's an example of where he was partly sought,

and partly sought the job himself.

[ Page 1185 ]

MR. BENNETT: If the appointment is going to be handled

through the Law Society, then does this mean that there'll be

no more lay judges appointed in British Columbia, because it's

being handled, I guess, by the lawyers' union?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it's the Judicial Council which is

composed of lay members. It's the Chief Judge, a representative

of the Bar Association — they're both lawyers, of course — and

then there's a labour representative on there, and there's a

housewife on the Judicial Council. And I think I'm missing....

Oh, and a businessman, Mr. Carl Wiemer — even a businessman,

and so, really, it isn't dominated by lawyers. But it's true,

the general policy of this government is that we should try to

find legally trained people to fill those new judicial

posts.

MR. CHABOT: It's quite obvious that the Attorney-General has

some influence with the Judicial Council, in view of the fact

that he appoints people to the Judicial Council. My question

was whether there was any suggestion of politics, and whether

his political background had any bearing on any of these

appointments. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

suggested, in an aside across the floor, that not since '72 has

there been political consideration as to the appointment of

judges in the province. I'm wondering when Leo Nimsick Jr. was

appointed to the provincial court, whether his political

background had any bearing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If the Minister of Public Works said

that, he was wrong. I'm not suggesting there were political

appointments under the Social Credit regime, and there

certainly have not been since I became Attorney-General. And

the political thing had nothing to do with the appointment of

Judge Nimsick. He was one of....

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He was nominated under Social Credit.

MR. BENNETT: That's not the point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How would you know about it?

(Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I try not to know the political

backgrounds of these people, and for the most

part I don't.

Sometimes I do accidentally, but I would think a very small

percentage of them have been of my particular party.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the point is: because it is handled by the

commission and because, as the Attorney-General stated earlier, the word is

sort of circulated that these positions are open, then that does preclude anyone

from the public sector, other than someone who is a trained lawyer, from knowing

when these positions are available or upcoming. So, it is that there will be

no more lay judges appointed in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has to do with the general

policy.

MR. BENNETT: No, more. I'm just asking.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would not say there would never be an

exception....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When the Hon. Attorney-General

answers would he use his microphone?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I wouldn't like to say that

there'll never be another lay judge appointed. You know some of

the lay judges have given great service to this province; I'm

thinking of Judge Ostler right over here; Justice Haig-Brown,

and others. But our policy is: in future we would like to see

judicially trained, legally trained people as judges.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to hear the

Attorney-General say he isn't precluding the opportunity for a

highly competent and responsible lay person to be appointed as

judge because the House responded to your comments.

I think there has been some excellent lay judges in the

history of British Columbia. In my humble view, there is a role

for them to play. Some of the problems we have are because of

the complexities of the legal machine and the legal mind. I

think there are instances in court work where really what is

needed is some good common sense and fatherly advice.

I would also like to ask a question in relation to one of

the answers you made about the selection of judges. It does

appear to me, the way you stated it, that there's a tendency

for it still to be a closed shop or a grapevine selection when

it comes to who is going to have an opportunity to apply to be

a judge or submit an application and be chosen. We've seen

incident after incident, whether it's in the marketing boards

or in the practice of medicine or the legal fraternity or in

unions, where those in the metropolitan area tend to have a

greater opportunity to be heard and to be seen.

You mentioned a young lawyer who had been active in family

court work both here and in areas across Canada. I would put it

to you that there are likely some very competent lawyers

perhaps in the

[ Page 1186 ]

northern part of the province or the Kootenays who have not

become — and I don't mean this critically — political lawyers.

They're people lawyers. It would be a tragedy if they were

overlooked because they weren't political lawyers. I would

really like to suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, that when there

is a vacancy the grapevine extend to every member of the Law

Society so that they know the vacancy is there and so that any

practising lawyer or any qualified person has the opportunity

to submit an application.

The Judicial Council, I'm sure, operates very effectively,

but my understanding — and correct me if I'm wrong — is that it

is basically a metropolitan-centred programme too. I really

think we would be missing the opportunity for some very fine

people to serve. It would be a shame if this happened on a

geographic basis.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the

suggestion. I don't accept that completely non-political

lawyers are being appointed, because they are. The one I

mentioned, Judge Hart, as far as I know has never had any

political activity connected with him at all. I don't think

so.

You have made a suggestion that I take seriously. Perhaps

even within the legal profession there should be some

advertising. Now, mind you, it's pretty well known by all

lawyers, but I don't see any harm in perhaps just explaining

the process in an ad in the Advocate which goes to all

lawyers in British Columbia. It's worth thinking about.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to question whether the

Attorney-General's considering raising the per diem rates and

the expenses for jurors in the Province of British Columbia. I

know it's been raised and it's been discussed many times. It's

a hardship for those who are called upon to serve justice in

this province. Could you let us know your feelings on whether

this will be raised, particularly with the change in inflation

and the fact that the amounts paid are not realistic now?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't think $10 a day

is sufficient and I intend to go to my colleagues on the

Treasury benches and see if some adjustment can't be made.

MR. BENNETT: Well, do you have a figure in mind that you're

going to recommend? Will there be adjustments for expenses over

and above the per diem rate if they have to stay overnight in

hotel rooms and for meals? In light of this, while we're on

courts, are you reviewing the salaries for these provincial

judges we've talked about? Could you advise what the salary

scale is and whether there's any attempt to have it tied to the

cost of living on automatic increases?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in connection with jurors,

they do receive their expenses now. It's the per diem that we

want to look at and hopefully have adjusted upward.

In the case of provincial judges, to award them the cost of

living would mean they would be so far behind Ontario and so

far out of kilter with the Supreme Court of British Columbia,

where I think some adjustment is about to be made by Ottawa,

that that would be quite inadequate.

MR. BENNETT: What are the rates?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The rates are now $26,500 for a judge of

the provincial court and $28,500 for a district judge. Chief

judge: $31,000.

MR. BENNETT: Are you planning on raising these?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's a financial expense of

government and it's our intention that they should be

improved.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Very briefly, I was a little

disturbed to hear that it may be very much the exception to

have a lay judge. The Attorney-General himself mentioned the

name of Judge Ostler, who must rank in this greater Victoria

community, and I would expect within his own profession, as one

of the outstanding judges in this province. It would seem to

me a tragedy indeed if in future the judicial system in this

province might be denied similar people of the calibre of Judge

Ostler. I feel the answer which the Attorney-General gave

deserves a little wider explanation.

I don't know who constitutes the Judicial Council, how many

people are on the Judicial Council, who are in the process and

after all, somebody has to choose them or they have to be

appointed in the first instance. Surely their attitude is going

to be very important in determining the potential for future

Judge Ostlers. I feel that was skipped over rather lightly and

I hope perhaps the Attorney-General will just make a little

more comment on the potential for lay judges.

The other point I raised earlier this afternoon, and the

Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) has just mentioned it

again: how do judges have any say whatever in seeking a

legitimate increase in their income? I jokingly said that I

know they wouldn't have a union, but is there any mechanism? If

there isn't some mechanism, surely we should give them some

access to presenting their own position in the economic

sense.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is not a union of judges, but

there is a Provincial Judges Association.

[ Page 1187 ]

Since I have been Attorney-General, I have encouraged that

association because I think it's important to speak with them

about improving the quality of justice, about their

contribution to society and to get ideas out through them.

That's just as important as when they come and speak to me

about salaries or pensions. Both things are important and we do

listen to that association which possibly has about 50 per cent

of the provincial judges in it at the present time. Its

past-president is Judge Johnson. [At the present time it's

Judge Keenlyside.]

On your first question about lay judges, whenever we can in

the future we will want a legally-trained person to be the one

to be appointed as a future judge. I'm not deprecating the

great work the lay judges have done, particularly the full-time

ones. I would certainly have no intention of cancelling or

interfering in the work of these full-time lay judges such as

Judge Ostler, Judge Steele, Judge Anderson and so forth.

MRS. JORDAN: I've talked to the Attorney-General about this

before. I wouldn't want to canvass it again if it's been

canvassed while I was out of the House and press his patience

too far. One of the matters that concerns me is the matter of

the small debts court. Are you indulging in marital counselling

now? Because you've got the wrong family.

I believe we have the highest limit in Canada for small

debts court: $1,000. This is working very effectively and there

is strong evidence to suggest that the small debts court could

be utilized by people even more effectively if this limit was

raised. It has the advantage of keeping legal fees to a minimum

in the smaller disputes. It also has more of an atmosphere of

concern for a settlement than necessarily practising law. I

would ask the Attorney-General if he is considering raising the

maximum.

Secondly, it has always been my feeling that there's room in

the legal profession, without posing any threat to the legal

profession, and certainly room in society for what I tend to

call the "Abe Lincoln approach" to minor disputes. You often

get small disputes in matters of property lines between

neighbours on small lots or in matters of a purchase. We should

establish in British Columbia this type of a hearing area where

you have a responsible citizen. I don't think it necessarily

has to be a person who is qualified to be a judge, but one who

has a knowledge of the law. When people have a dispute they

have the opportunity, before they get embroiled with lawyers

and the complexities arising therein, to go before this

individual on an individual basis as a family or as two

individuals without lawyers to discuss the situation.

This responsible person can examine it from the point of view of whether or

not there is indeed a major legal concern or if in fact it is a minor legal

concern which, if pursued in the courts, is going to cost a great deal of money,

and try and arrive at a sensible and reasonable solution between two people

that isn't going to cost them a great deal of money and that probably could

be brought about in terms of just responsible counselling.

If the government adopted this it wouldn't preclude their

right to go to court if they were unhappy with the decision

that was rendered. It would merely be an attempt to help people

get together, overcome the emotional aspect that happens when

neighbours get locked in a dispute, and also to protect them

from the problems that arise once one approaches a lawyer.

I'm sure the Attorney-General is well aware, as we all are,

that once one party contacts a lawyer, it is absolutely

impossible for the two individuals to sit down and discuss the

matter in a calm sensible way. You get lawyers talking to

lawyers and letters going back and forth and, really, the only

person who is benefiting is the lawyer involved and the federal

income tax people.

Finally it goes to court or there is a settlement out of

court and the cost involved to both people is far greater than

the value of the dispute or the material aspect of the dispute.

The value is infinitesimal in terms of the social value between

two human beings.

I would ask the Attorney-General if he would give

consideration to establishing this kind of approach to small

disputes in order that people can see whether it would work. I

believe it would.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will do that at

this session. The proposed pilot model for the family court

includes counsellors so that people can conciliate before they

get to the threshold of the court. In the provincial court,

small claims division, I think you will see some legislation

brought in by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms.

Young) at this session of the House.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one more point. I'm very pleased to hear

your response about this because it is something I personally

have wanted to see for a long time. In your proposed

legislation — I know you don't want to go into it — this would

not be just matters relating to family disputes; this would

also include property matters and other such areas.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

speak at this moment, if I may, about another matter which I

think comes properly under this department, and that is

concerning the Fire Marshal's department.

I wonder if the Attorney-General is aware that the Sidney

Volunteer Fire Department has now been charged with the

responsibility of fire protection of the Victoria International

Airport, particularly after

[ Page 1188 ]

midnight. They have some other responsibilities during the

day but particularly after midnight they are responsible for

the entire airport.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us how a

volunteer fire department, which, incidentally, is an excellent

fire department, can suddenly be found responsible for a

federal department, for the federal airport right here in

Victoria. I wonder if he could assure us that that department

can look after that responsibility, because it is a big one,

and that the Sidney community will not suffer if there should

happen to be a fire there.

I wonder if he is doing anything about it and if the Fire

Marshal's department could look into it. I want to be sure that

that airport can be properly serviced. I understand that the

Sidney volunteer department is really only required to look

after the buildings as such. If there happened to be a fire

caused by an aircraft explosion or crash, they are not required

to look after it, and neither is anybody else.

There doesn't appear to be anyone responsible for it after

midnight. I think it is an extremely serious problem. I wonder

if he could give the House some advice and some advice to the

volunteer firemen in Sidney.

Incidentally, I also understand that the first fireman to

arrive on the scene becomes the fire chief. It is a very

serious responsibility that is being placed on these

individuals, who I'm not sure are properly trained to handle

it.

I'm not sure that the people who are on that property will

be properly looked after. And I'm not sure that the people in

the Sidney area could be looked after if there was a serious

fire at the airport.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the fire protection at an

airport is a federal matter because the airports are federal.

Now the federal people may have so cut back on personnel

engaged for fire protection that local municipal forces and

volunteer forces have stepped in to pick up the slack.

If that is the case in Sidney I would appreciate the Hon.

Member making representations to the Member of Parliament and

also, if you want to make representations to my department, I

will have it discussed with the provincial Fire Marshal who has

some concern, even though it is a federal area. Based upon what

he says we might make representations as a government to

Ottawa.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting then, since

there are no firemen of the federal government on the airport

after midnight, that this responsibility automatically falls on

the people who are in the surrounding area to protect

themselves? There are no federal firemen there after

midnight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the Member should be raising this

under vote 29.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Earlier in the discussion here we

were talking about the legally trained judges and their

salaries. There has been no mention of the lay judges that we

still have. I realize that your policy is to phase them out,

but what is the salary structure for lay judges?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it varies. You would have

to ask a specific question about a specific area, because it

varies from $100 a month for someone who does practically

nothing to the occasional case of up to $1,200 or $1,600 a

month.

MR. FRASER: You indicated that the legally trained judges

are going to get an increase shortly. What about the lay

judges?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're looking at that as well.

MR. FRASER: How long will you look?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll look at least until April.

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

would just like to raise a couple of questions very briefly

first before getting into another subject that hasn't been

canvassed yet.

The Attorney-General was good enough to tell us yesterday

his basic posture on the Skagit question, which was that there

was no valid agreement existing between the Province of British

Columbia and Seattle City Light because that agreement had

never been ratified by the International Joint Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hasn't that matter been canvassed already?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm continuing from the

Attorney-General's answer, if I may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are being repetitive too.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'm being repetitive

in giving the one-sentence reply that the Attorney-General gave

me in response to this question yesterday. I don't think that

is repetitive, with respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I bring it to your attention. You may

continue.

MR. GIBSON: Now that was the essential defence

[ Page 1189 ]

of the Attorney-General. Let us hope that that is the

case.

But suppose, Mr. Chairman, that a contract does exist in the

view of Seattle City Light. In view of the fact that they have

spent, according to their estimates, some millions of dollars

to prepare the groundwork for this flooding which we very much

oppose, one can only suppose that Seattle City Light does think

that there is a contract, or else they wouldn't be spending

those kinds of funds.

I have to ask the Attorney-General if his opinion and

Seattle City Light's opinion differ substantially. If Seattle

City Light goes to the Federal Power Commission and is able to

get an authorization to proceed, the Government of British

Columbia not having, according to the statement of the Minister

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

assisted in the preparation of the federal intervention....

Supposing this happens, and supposing the Seattle City Light

and Power builds a dam and the waters start rising and come

gradually toward the border of British Columbia, and at some

point they hit the border, and then the dam is a good deal

higher so the waters continue on into British Columbia....

MR. LEWIS: You want to divert the Skagit.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member suggests that we can divert the

Skagit. Mr. Member, I'm sorry; the agreement that was signed by

the Province of British Columbia commits the government of

British Columbia not to divert the Skagit. That's another one

of the problems with that agreement.

So the water is at the border and it's coming across the

border....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to bring to the Member's attention that

there is a resolution on the order paper — motion 21 — dealing

with this very subject.

MR. GIBSON: Could you read the motion, please, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you have your own there; you can read

it yourself. You are out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Would you give me a moment to read it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I would suggest if you don't continue on

something else, I'll recognize somebody else. You're out of

order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish you'd give me a moment to

read the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm ruling that you're out of order on that

subject. You're not to argue that. If you don't like that

ruling, then you challenge the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a chance to read a

precise motion on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You may take your seat and read it.

HON. MR. KING: You can rise again. You don't lose your

place.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General what his feelings are on the conviction of

drug pushers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you raise your voice a little bit?

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Attorney-General, what is the feeling of

the chief law officer in British Columbia on the conviction —

or what sentence should convicted drug traffickers have?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's federal Criminal

Code and up to the judge concerned.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Attorney-General, what is your

recommendation? What is your feeling on it? It's been said that

the majority of heroin....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would bring to the Member's attention that

that's not a proper line of questioning. That's a judicial

question and really doesn't belong in this discussion. It's a

judicial function entirely.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister, I'm sure, must

attend federal conferences on a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a proper line of questioning to

follow. It's a judicial function.

MR. PHILLIPS: Heroin addicts are here in British Columbia,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got to tackle that in a different way

and I think you're well aware of that.

MR. FRASER: I'm standing here tonight to try to get some

answers out of that Attorney-General. He hasn't answered

anything here for three days. That's why we're still here.

We've all asked good questions and we can't get anything but

wishy-washy answers out of this chief law officer of the

province...

MR. LEWIS: Wishy-washy questions.

[ Page 1190 ]

MR. FRASER: ...such as the Indian land claims. You never

even tried to reply to me the other day on Indian land claims.

That got squirreled all around and nobody knows where it is,

including the people who are affected. The Premier made some

kind of announcement today, or somebody else did — I don't know

who it was — but it sounds like maybe you're now going to meet

with some of these people. That's wonderful after a

year-and-a-half of trying to get you to sit down.

Mr. Chairman, this Minister is also the Minister in charge

of booze in this province. We've talked some about it but not

very much. Well, I'm going to tell you something about booze,

Mr. Minister of Public Works....

HON. MR. BARRETT: What do you know about booze? (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: On the accounts committee we find out that

you've got a markup on this stuff of 47 per cent. The point I

want to make here, Mr. Chairman, is that you're ripping off all

the citizens of British Columbia who want to use these

beverages. Your pricing formula for liquor is still the same as

it was passed by order-in-council in 1971.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's before your committee.

MR. FRASER: Right. But you have been the government now for

18 months tomorrow, right? You promised a lot of things in the

election campaign about the pricing of booze. You've had lots

of time to change the formula and nothing has happened — except

this: the rip-off to the buyer is increased because of

inflation. Whether or not the sales of liquor stay at the same

level, because of inflation your net profit keeps soaring.

I predict that by 1975 your net profit is going to climb to

$200 million. Mr. Chairman, I think this Minister should look

into this and certainly reduce the markup in view of inflation.

You're just as bad as the federals in Ottawa on the income tax

situation You're using the same policy: as inflation rises, you

get more of the take into the coffers. I think it's about time....

The other thing on the liquor, you've got so many advisers

that we've lost all track of them, but....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: It's you I'm talking about. What about this

advisory committee set up? Is that what you call it — an advisory

committee to the liquor board? What are they doing? Nothing has

happened since you've been Attorney-General — 18 months tomorrow. I

can't understand why we can't get some action.

The other thing, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, is

that I'd like to talk just one minute on the expropriation laws.

They're scattered all over the statutes of this province. When you were

in the opposition you were saying plenty how you'd do things and get

them all into one statute. Now nothing again has happened on this, to

my knowledge. And our citizens....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I was in the opposition then.

MR. FRASER: I realize that, but you were going to change

everything. You've now had 18 months and you haven't done

anything. I'm saying, get on with some of these things you said

you'd do. As far as the expropriation laws are concerned, our

citizens are completely confused. They're not getting proper

settlements for land acquired by B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail,

Department of Highways, and so on. When are they going to get

some satisfaction on these sorts of things?

Now the other item I don't think has been brought up in this

debate, Mr. Chairman — and it certainly affects this Minister —

is the subject of cattle rustling in this province. This has

been getting worse and worse, one of the reasons being the high

cost of beef.

I'd just like to read to you some facts that are going on,

and again you haven't done anything about it at all. The

Minister of Agriculture for Canada said the other day that beef

prices are going to advance 30 cents a pound. Of course this is

going to further escalate cattle rustling....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does that include rounding up herds for

Socreds?

MR. FRASER: On the subject of cattle rustling, it's a real

big problem to the cattle ranchers and nothing has been done in

your department. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell the

Attorney-General — I know he doesn't know anything about

the department — but you have a very capable detachment of

three men in the Province of British Columbia stationed in

Kamloops. They are in charge of the whole Province of British

Columbia to enforce the laws that affect cattle rustling.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, no wonder we have an increase in

cattle rustling with three officers of the RCMP in charge.

Furthermore, the officer in charge of them had charges laid

against all the members of the detachment last fall and they've

been defending themselves in court. They haven't any time to go

out and find the real criminals. I think it's a crime that this

happened to them. In any case, they're very dedicated people,

but there aren't enough of them.

[ Page 1191 ]

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: You write something down here. He always

forgets. When we sit down, we wonder why he's here. He doesn't

pay any attention to the questions. I don't know whether he can

write or not, but if he can't he can get his Deputy to write

these things down. I want to know whether you're going to

increase the amount of people on the cattle-rustling detail of

the RCMP.

I don't think you realize the seriousness of the situation,

Mr. Attorney-General. I'll just read you from a report of what

happened in 1973. A report received from the recorder of brands

at the end of 1973 stated that during the year 347 cattle were

reported either strayed or stolen. Of these only 22 were

recovered. This compares with 1972 when 199 were reported

missing and 62 recovered. So you can see that....

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we don't need that foreign kind of

stuff in the House. In fact, it's against the House rules.

But anyway, we're back on cattle rustling, how it's

escalated even from the year '72 to '73. Maybe it's because we

got an NDP government, I don't know. But I don't think it is. I

don't think it is at all. It's practically doubled. As I

mentioned earlier, the price of beef is going to go up further,

so we're going to have further escalation in 1974 unless you

get some more people on this cattle-rustling detail.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: It is difficult to get the exact number of cases

reported to the police, but in the Kamloops subdivision in

1973, 110 cattle were reported stolen, plus six shot and three

of them left behind. During 1972 in the Interior only seven

cases of rustling were prosecuted: two in Princeton, three in

Cranbrook, one in Alexis Creek, one in Vanderhoof. Alexis

Creek, I know where that is; that's in the good riding of

Cariboo, the centre of all the cattle ranching in British

Columbia.

The other thing that the cattlemen object to, Mr.

Attorney-General, is that when these people are apprehended and

brought before the law they receive a sentence from suspended

to a $1,500 fine. In other words, the law is completely

inadequate. On this point, this is a federal law. I know that

will be your answer.

I think you as Attorney-General should strengthen and stiffen this law. There

has been word gone to you, certainly to the MP, to make it a minimum sentence

of one year in prison. Probably there isn't much incentive for the enforcement

branch or the cattlemen to go and apprehend these cattle rustlers and then let

them off with a suspended sentence.

It seems to the cattle people that the main burden of

preventing of cattle rustling has been left to the cattlemen

themselves. I don't think that is correct.

During 1972, Mr. Chairman, in the 1972-73 fiscal year, the

association paid out one reward of $150. So far in 1973-74 they

have paid out a total of $2,650 in direct rewards to the

informants to the police in an effort to stop rustling. So it

is obvious that they are doing their part of trying to enforce

these illegal acts.

What annoys them is in the last case — where they paid a

$500 reward — which led to confiscation, the man was found

guilty and then given one year's probation and forced to pay

$250 restitution. They compare this unfavourably with the heavy

fines for shooting game out of season — the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Radford'

s) department

over there.

In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General,

the cattlemen have had to bring in their own enforcement. They

are going out on the range to try and take licence numbers down

and so on so they can apprehend these people.

Another point, Mr. Attorney-General, is that I can't

understand why the government hasn't acted before now in

compensating these people that are losing these animals. They

have requested this several times. I'm not too clear that

compensation should come through the Attorney-General's

department, but they certainly are entitled to it. When there

is a criminal act involved, why should they have to pick up all

the bills?

There was a case in the Kamloops area last year — no, by the

way, it was in the Coquitlam area — where a calf was stolen

from a 4H club representative.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're not charging the Premier, are

you?

MR. FRASER: Well, no, I'm not saying the Premier stole it.

Anyway there was no apprehension at all. What I am saying, Mr.

Attorney-General, is that this is another law that's not being

enforced. It's on the books and it just goes willy-nilly. The

cattlemen are having heavy losses and they're going to have a

lot heavier losses. I would like to know tonight from the

Attorney-General, particularly, if he's going to increase the

RCMP cattle deal out of Kamloops.

There is no reason why, with the amount of money that is

involved in the province.... We should have three times this

many men right away to overcome these illegal acts. There's no

way that three men can patrol the Province of British Columbia

and the millions of acres of Crown land where these cattle are

grazing. I will sit down and hopefully get some answers.

[ Page 1192 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Member has brought up a serious

point about cattle rustling, and we will be glad to look at

that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, having had a chance to read motion

21 on the orders of the day, I simply can't agree. Let me read

it out to you to explain.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, if you're going to deal with that, you're

out of order. I've told you that before.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've ruled that that's out of order. You can

challenge the ruling, but you are not going to argue the

order.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about the duties of the

Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can talk about the duties of the

Attorney-General and you'll be in order.

MR. GIBSON: The duties of the Attorney-General, Mr.

Chairman, relate to Skagit. The government can't muzzle this

House by getting one of its backbenchers to put something on

the order paper with the word Skagit on it and deny talking

about the Skagit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. GIBSON: You talk about legislation by exhaustion or

starvation! What we have tonight....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm telling you that you are out of order if

you are talking on that subject.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is closure by abuse of the

rules of the House. That's what this is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm telling you that you can speak on other

subjects, but that's out of order.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, may I develop....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may challenge the ruling if you wish but

either that....

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, why may I not raise that motion

and describe...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've already ruled that it's out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, have you read that motion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: Would you like to tell me what it is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've told you you are out of order unless you

proceed on some other case.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I am asking you to describe the

reason for feeling that this motion ruled me out of order...when I am talking about the duties of the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're out of order.

MR. GIBSON: I'm asking the Attorney-General questions as to

what is the applicable law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may deal with the Attorney-General's

estimates, but you may not deal with something that's on the

order paper. I've ruled this out of order and there's no place

for you to argue that further. You can challenge the ruling if

you like.

MR. GIBSON: I'm saying that asking the Attorney-General what

the law is in relation to the Skagit Valley has nothing to do

with that motion on the order paper. It's a separate

subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a point of order. Would you state your

point of order?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): The Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk)

persists in speaking from other than his own seat. If you are

going to exercise rules, would you kindly exercise them with

respect to that Minister? It goes on time after time after

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Will the Members take

their own seats if they are going to participate?

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: The public service of British Columbia puts out

an excellent document describing the duties of departments and

Ministers. Some of the duties of the Attorney-General are:

"through assistance extended to him by his Deputy and the

solicitors within the department, responsible for expressing

legal opinions, whether it be to the executive council or to

other departments of government on all matters which arise

requiring an opinion. Additionally the department furnishes

legal advice to provincial commissions and boards such as the

Public Utilities Commission and the liquor board."

[ Page 1193 ]

And later:

"The Attorney-General or counsel appointed to represent him

appears on behalf of the Crown in civil litigation in which the

Crown is a party...any constitutional litigation when the

constitutionality of a statute is brought into question."

Now I want to ask him a question. I want to ask the

Attorney-General in this matter in what court he is going to

propose to seek redress as that water comes up to the border

and over the border.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano has

the floor and if you have anything to continue with, someone

else can have it.

MR. GIBSON: If the Attorney-General would like to express an

opinion on that now.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't think this is very fair, Mr. Chairman.

If the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I want to talk to the Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). You have no place in

this House to criticize the partiality of the