British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, March 14, 1974 — Afternoon Sitting (30th Parliament, 4th Session)

30p 04s 740314p

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1133 ]

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill

75).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1133

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 69).

Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 1134

Oral Questions

Municipality complaints on high auto insurance rates.

Mr. Bennett — 1134

Income tax rebate loans. Hon. Ms. Young — 1134

"Scabbing" among herring fishermen. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1134

Boxcar shortage, the current situation. Mr. Wallace — 1135

Reduction of stumpage rates to forest industry. Mr. Fraser — 1135

Future payment of municipal taxes by ICBC claims

centres.

Mr. Gibson. — 1135

Boycott for Turkish produce. Mr. Phillips — 1136

Freezing property tax increases. Mr. Gardom — 1136

Negotiations between B.C. Hospitals Association and

RNABC.

Mrs. Jordan — 1136

Insurance cost for government vehicles. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1136

Import quotas and price rises of beef cattle. Mr. Curtis — 1137

Statement on tourism by the Minister of Highways.

Mr. Morrison — 1137

Meeting on land claims with B.C. Indian Chiefs. Mr. Wallace — 1137

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates On vote 11.

Mr. Phillips — 1137

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1140

Mr. Rolston — 1141

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1143

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1144

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1144

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1145

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1145

Mr. Wallace — 1146

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1150

Mr. Wallace — 1151

Mr. Gardom — 1152

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1154

Mr. Gardom — 1155

Mr. Skelly — 1155

Mr. Smith — 1157

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1157

Mr. Smith — 1157

Mr. Cummings — 1158

Mr. McGeer — 1159

Mr. McClelland — 1160

Mr. Phillips — 1164

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1165

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1167

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, last night I was at

a secret meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

HON. MR. BARRETT: After sleeping on the results of that

meeting I have decided that I must tell the House the results

and let the chips fall where they may.

Mr. Speaker, this House has a press gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have on occasion taken strangers into

their midst and have suffered both ways, Mr. Speaker. In the

past they initiated the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett as an honorary

member of that group. Then they took in the former Leader of

the Opposition and the present Minister of Transport, the Hon.

Robert Strachan. Then they elevated their membership and status

by taking in Ned DeBeck. But last night, Mr. Speaker, they went

back to the same level as earlier and they took in as an

honorary member James K. Nesbitt. Some people would like to

applaud that, Mr. Speaker, and I give them the opportunity of

doing it.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the House I'm sure you would all

agree that we should commend the choice of the press gallery —

one of the finest members we've had in the press gallery in

many, many years.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today we have visiting us a group of students from that

avant garde college Douglas College. Some of you know where Douglas College is.

It has campuses in New Westminster, Surrey and Richmond. We

have visiting us this afternoon a large group of community

service worker students. I'd like the House to greet those

students.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, this

afternoon in the Speaker's gallery beyond and above you we have

the president of the Western Guides and Outfitters Association,

Mr. Don Peck, and his son Tim.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): In the galleries today we have 25 students

from that new and exciting community of Gold River under the direction of their

principal, Mr. G. Seens, and I would like the Legislature to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Thank you! It's

amazing to receive such early recognition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a reason for that.

MR. GARDOM: I do have to thank you very much. But I would

like to very much welcome to the House Rev. Cyril Venables who

said prayers today. He's my cousin and I apologize for not

being present. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: May I say to Hon. Members that I have issued

instructions to Hansard to send up immediately his

remarks on your absence. (Laughter.)

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): You're not the only one that has

to apologize. I'd like to ask you to welcome to this House my

aunt, Ethel Foster, her son Walter and his wife Shirley. Walter

and Shirley are here from Edmonton.

Also up behind the pillar over there we have the chairman of

the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District, who actually lives on

the largest island in the Fraser Valley. It's called Nicomen

Island. It has, I might say, 27 miles of dikes around

it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. No speeches.

MR. ROLSTON: Jim Jeffries is the chairman of the regional

district, and from Maple Ridge we have an alderman, Reg

Franklin.

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

like the House to join me in welcoming to us today Mr. Al

Dawson, area representative in the Central Kootenay Regional

District and a neighbour of mine in the quiet but progressive

community of Willow Point.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

House today to welcome Alderman Irene Howard, the chairman of

the Richmond planning commission — and, by the way, we are

surrounded with dikes in Richmond.

Introduction of bills.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES INTERIM

RENT STABILIZATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled

[ Page

1134 ]

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization

Act .

Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Credit

Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question that

was raised yesterday by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan), may I ask whether you have, Mr. Speaker, had an

opportunity to consult the authorities regarding an alleged

offence which took place in the corridor, and whether the quote

from May on page 433 where it states that "Misbehaviour

in the lobbies, such as the use of offensive expressions or

insulting words or threats is accordingly left to the House to

be dealt with under the ancient practice as a contempt" will be

followed, or whether you have been able to resolve this matter

in some other way?

MR. SPEAKER: There's no matter at the present time before

the House on this question. But I point out to the Hon. Members

that page 434 of May , as I understand it, refers to

those matters involving attacks or threats or libel upon

Members., I will take a look at the Hon. Member's suggestion and give

it some thought, but as it stands, nothing is before the

House.

Oral questions.

MUNICIPALITY COMPLAINTS ON

HIGH AUTO INSURANCE RATES

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

the Minister of Transport and Communications: there has been

registered some complaints from municipalities that they are

paying rates starting as high as 100 per cent extra for their

automobile insurance. I wonder if the Minister has complaints

from other municipalities besides the ones from Castlegar and

Langley that are reported in the press.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I've

had, I think, two complaints from municipalities. I have a copy of the letter

which was sent from the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) to all of the municipalities,

trying to stir it up a bit. I am checking on the figures now.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental. If there are extraordinarily

high rates for municipalities — and I'm sure you wouldn't want

to burden another former government — are you planning reducing

the rates for municipalities...giving them a special

rate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I said earlier, I am waiting for a

report on the situation.

MR. BENNETT: Another supplemental while you're on your feet,

Mr. Minister: do the municipalities pay the same rate as the

provincial government?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to check that. There's a

fleet system. Now just how it operates with regard to

municipalities and provincial government.... But, as I

understand it, it's the same fleet system right through.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental, because you took as notice

about two or three weeks ago the rate the government was

paying, and I haven't had an answer on that yet. Can you answer

that question today as to what rate the provincial government

pays?

Mr. Speaker, I would allow other questions while the

Minister looks so we don't use up the question time.

MR. SPEAKER: Having had your permission I would ask the Hon.

Minister of Consumer Services to answer a question.

INCOME TAX REBATE LOANS

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

Speaker, a while back I took as notice a question from the Hon.

Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) referring to

tax rebate complaints. I wish to inform him that I have

received only the complaints referred to in The Vancouver

Sun from Richard Aimes; these are the only complaints we

have received. However, I anticipate that when the people go

back to get the other half of their tax rebate and the tax

rebate operators have flown, that's when we'll start getting

the complaints. Thank you.

"SCABBING" AMONG HERRING FISHERMEN

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier:

the recent issue of The Fisherman , a journal of the

United Fishermen and Allied Workers

[ Page 1135 ]

Union had the Premier quoted as saying that the Pacific

Trollermen's Association members fishing herring were scabbing.

As this is a fairly important issue, I wonder whether the

Premier would like to comment as to whether he has taken sides

on this issue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am not taking sides, Mr. Member.

BOXCAR SHORTAGE, THE CURRENT SITUATION

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

Premier...? It has been mentioned before, but it's obviously

acutely serious now in terms of the boxcar shortage, that

people are being laid off and plants are creating unemployment.

Could he give us the most up-to-date statement of where we're

at in the shortage of boxcars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I asked the Minister of

Transport to attend the meeting, and I would ask, with your

leave, to have him answer that question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the four western Ministers

of Transport met with the federal Minister yesterday. That was

an area of some lengthy discussion. I think if I read one

paragraph in the press release, it would indicate the area of

discussion.

"In response to a strong expression of western concern about

shortage of rail cars for the movement of western commodities,

Mr. Marchand confirmed that as part of the short-term solution

the federal government would contribute some $3.4 million for

the refurbishing of CN and CP rail cars that are now not being

used because they require some work done on them."

The Minister's also agreed that more rail cars must be build

and that a national monitoring system should be started

immediately. This arose out of complaints that in different

parts of the country — on an observation basis — some cars were

sitting on sidings for weeks on end, rather than being

utilized. So we are proposing to set up a monitoring

system.

There was also an agreement that long-term policies are

required to provide adequate and efficient equipment and

systems to accommodate unexpected economic booms like the

country has recently experienced in the wheat, lumber and fruit

industry.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. How soon can the

Minister anticipate some real increase? The refurbishing, for

example, will take how long? Is this weeks, months, years?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, as fast as the two national

railways can get to work on these cars, they'll be on line.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister couldn't put a figure on the

time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, but the federal government is

providing the funds for the two corporations to refurbish these

cars. The monitoring system will allow us to check on whether

cars are being utilized as adequately as they should be.

REDUCTION OF STUMPAGE

RATES TO FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In view of the

high cost to the forest industry of getting their manufactured

products to market, they have to shop by truck, which costs a

lot more money. Because of the shortage of rail cars it's

obvious, from the answer we just got, that this is going to

continue for some time. Has the Minister considered reducing

the stumpage fees to the industry to offset this extra

cost?

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

It has not been considered to this date, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: will they consider

it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take that as notice.

FUTURE PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL

TAXES BY ICBC CLAIMS CENTRES

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

have a question for the Minister of Transport and

Communications. Is the Minister as yet in a position to reply

to the request of the council of the District of North

Vancouver for reassurance that the two proposed ICBC claims

centres to be located in the district will definitely pay full

municipal taxes for the years beyond 1974?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I just got the first look at that letter

this morning; I haven't had time to give it any consideration.

I've given a guarantee to the North Vancouver council that they

will be paid those rates. For some reason they have failed to

accept that. I don't know what the next step is, quite frankly.

I guess that service centre will be delayed because of the

attitude of the council. I've given them the assurance.

[ Page 1136 ]

MR. GIBSON: It's a question of beyond 1974 — on a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister give his

undertaking that until this is resolved the matter won't

proceed without a building permit at least?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The people of North Vancouver are

certainly being delayed with an adequate claims service.

BOYCOTT FOR TURKISH PRODUCE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to address my question to the Hon. Attorney-General.

In view of the recent announcement made by the Government of

Turkey that they are going to allow poppies to be grown on

farms again, is the Province of British Columbia going to make

any move to boycott products such as artichokes, wines and

things that we purchase from that country?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): No, I wouldn't think

we should even think in terms of a boycott. I'm inclined to

raised a very important subject) should consider some financial

assistance to the farmers of Turkey who feel they need to grow

poppies to make a living and who do not take into account,

because it's a matter of economic hardship for them, the

terrible effects of the plant they happen to be growing, even

in the Province of British Columbia and places as remote away

as that. I'd like to consider representations to the national

government in that respect.

M R. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the Attorney-General's remark. It is a very

serious problem, as we mentioned yesterday. However, does the Attorney-General

feel a boycott of products would not be similar to a boycott of wines from South

Africa? Would this not be a more important subject, or equally important?

MR. SPEAKER: That question appears to me to be

argumentative, therefore probably not permissible.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It would be counter-productive. That's

my first thought.

FREEZING PROPERTY TAX INCREASES

MR. GARDOM: I'm not going to talk about the Residential

Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act which was

introduced today. But has the Attorney- General considered

freezing property tax increases for 1974 to not over 8 per cent

of 1973?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, legislation in that

respect would be under a different department. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Which one? Mr. Speaker, as a supplemental, since

he's pointed to the Premier, we'll have the answer from the

Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought you were talking about legislation; I

may have been mistaken.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's still time for more legislation

this session. I have already stated publicly that we are

considering deferment legislation on small commercial

interests.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that's got nothing to do with

this.

NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN

B.C. HOSPITALS ASSOCIATION

AND RNABC

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Health. In view of the

fact that the B.C. Hospitals Association and the RNABC

(Registered Nurses Association of B.C.) are not now

negotiating, has the Minister any contingency plans?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, to announce any contingency

plans in the House would be counter-productive if, in fact,

there were any. At the present time I understand there's a good

feeling between the B.C. hospitals association and RNABC. I am

quite sure they will eventually work this question out. I think

at the present time there's need for more communication, and I

think that's precisely what is occurring.

MRS. JORDAN: Can I take it from the Minister's statement

then that they are negotiating since noon today? Has there been

a change?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say they were

negotiating directly, but I suggest there is communication.

There always is in this kind of situation. I'm given to

understand that it would be precipitous for me to make any

moves at the present time. I just don't feel it's a question we

can resolve here in any event.

INSURANCE COST

FOR GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A question was asked by

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

[ Page 1137 ]

Bennett) regarding the insurance cost for government

vehicles. I told him earlier there were 9,552 government

vehicles. The gross premium was $677,021.

I might say that in the light of some submissions from some

employees discussions are taking place regarding the coverage

so there may be an additional amount later on after we've

discussed that with the comptroller of the government

automobiles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that hidden in the budget?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's in each department.

IMPORT QUOTAS AND PRICE

RISES OF BEEF CATTLE

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Agriculture. Has the provincial Minister had any contact

with the federal Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan) on

the subject of perhaps introducing a long-term quota system or

interim tariff s concerning the importation of American beef

cattle into Canada?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Discussions

only to this point, Mr. Speaker. We have been supporting the

B.C. Cattlemen's Association in their representations to the

federal government and are pursuing this.

MR. CURTIS: Does the Minister agree with the prediction that

beef cattle prices are about to commence another price rise to

the consumer?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There is certainly a very grave danger of

this from the way the cattle herds are being depopulated in

this country as a result of the inaction on the part of the

present federal government, which again can go right back to

the actions President Nixon took in attempts to try to....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a chicken-and-egg thing, is

it?

STATEMENTS ON TOURISM

BY THE MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial

Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry. The Minister of Highways made a speech

at the Empress Hotel on March 11, and he made the statement that tourism is

in need of a major re-evaluation. My question really is: did the Highways Minister

have the Provincial Secretary's clearance before he made the statement that

tourists should stay away, which was included in that speech?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry):

I don't think this government will follow the previous practice of

Ministers having to check with any one person particularly before they

make statements. The whole subject of tourism is constantly being

reviewed, as I mentioned in my estimates last year and, I think, in

correspondence to communities in your area and others. The fact that

tourism is a very important thing in this province — it's the third

biggest industry — means we're naturally re-evaluating it all the time.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Point of order. At no

time did I say that tourists should stay away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Yankee go home!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! When a Member makes a statement

it is to be accepted without dispute.

Interjections.

MEETING ON LAND CLAIMS

WITH B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Human

Resources if a date has now been set for the Minister or the

Premier to meet with the B.C. Indian Chiefs regarding land

claims?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I took notice on

that yesterday.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in relation to this question,

I did take notice. The wire has been acknowledged and there

will be an official government representative at those

meetings.

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. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I certainly

appreciate the opportunity again to discuss the estimates of

the chief law officer in British Columbia. I'd like to bring up

a question to the Hon. Attorney-General.

[ Page 1138 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll just be a minute.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, are you going to discuss your bill? I'd

like to discuss your bill with you too.

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

continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go into the hall.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, you might get attacked. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the Attorney-General's

estimates he mentioned that there would be a faculty of law

opening up in the University of Victoria. I was very interested

to hear that; disappointed, however, that the college will not

be ready in September. I intended to ask him shortly after

that, but couldn't get the floor, what provision is going to be

made in this new faculty of law to assist young, qualified

students from up-country to be able to attend this faculty.

When this government first took office, I mentioned the fact

that areas in the north country were suffering from a shortage

of dentists, in some areas a shortage of doctors, and in some

areas a shortage of all professional people. I'm not just sure

who it was on the other side of the House who made a speech

saying that this government was going to look into that very

matter to see that students from the Prince Rupert area, from

the Minister of Highway's (Hon. Mr. Lea) area, and from your

area, Mr. Chairman, would somehow be able to have a better

opportunity to attend these facilities.

So it was the feeling, Mr. Chairman — and I think you

recognized that — that we can get young people from these areas

and give them the opportunity to attend the profession. It's an

expensive deal, as the Attorney-General pointed out in his

estimates; particularly more expensive for a student from the

northern area because he has to pay his transportation to and

from. He has to pay his board here while a person who lives in

Victoria could board at home. But it's the feeling that if we

have some of these students from the outlying areas taking

professional courses, they will return to the area to

practise.

Indeed, it could be written into some kind of contract that

if the government subsidizes them — I don't like the word

"subsidize" — but if the government assists them financially to

obtain their education, you can have a contract whereby they

must return to the area they come from for a certain period of

years.

Now, this type of assistance with education, Mr. Chairman,

is not new. There are many veterans who took their training

during the war and after the war, who signed a contract with

the federal government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member has a

very good point, and I certainly agree with him. However, I

think this would be more relevant to the Minister of

Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) estimates rather than those of

the Attorney-General.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly abide by your

decision, and be happy to. But it was the Attorney-General who

discussed the faculty of law at the University of Victoria.

Before the faculty actually gets the opportunity to open is the

time to give consideration to this, not after it's functioning

and is filled with students from the lower mainland, Mr.

Chairman. Now is the time we should be giving consideration to

this very, very important aspect of this new faculty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no item in the

estimates for this purpose, and I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to those matters which are contained in the

estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe, Mr. Chairman, the

Attorney-General, on his return to the chamber, will have some

remarks to make about that.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Maybe the Chairman can give

us a list of the things the Attorney-General has got in his

estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue the

matter which I raised in the question period just a little bit

further.

MR. McCLELLAND: He won't allow us to talk about

anything.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Attorney-General stated he might give a

commitment and that he would be interested in suggesting to the

federal government that some action be taken. I think this is

very important.

Now, we discussed drug addiction in the province at some

length. It has been discussed during the Attorney-General's

estimates, and here we have an opportunity to get to the very

root of the problem — where the heroin is actually manufactured.

If we have to take some harsh steps against the country of

Turkey, we're going to have to do it. But I think we should

stand up and be counted.

I'd like to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, part of an editorial in today's

Province, because I think it is very timely. It's quoting another Phillips,

Mayor Phillips of Vancouver, and I can see that both he and I have strong feelings

towards this very timely subject. I would like to read this into the record

before the House. I'm going to quote this article. It's

[ Page

1139 ]

just a short

article from the editorial page, Mr.

Chairman.

"As Attorney-General Alex Macdonald steps up his war on

crime, with special investigations, Vancouver's Mayor Art

Phillips is busy getting to the root of the problem.

"The local police, he says, are not much use at all when it

comes to dealing with the deadly heroin trade. What's needed is

swift, international action: for its

part in the opium business

the country of Turkey should be relentlessly avoided,

boycotted, and snubbed." Now, those are pretty harsh words from

our mayor, and I may say that I agree with him.

"Angrily condemning the Turks and their ugly economic

practices, the mayor pledged himself to urge all-out federal

action against the poppy-growing offenders.

"Clearly this is a step towards revolutionizing crime

control in Canada. Is the Mafia the source of organized

Criminal activities across the country? A sharp boycott of

tinned tuna and artichokes, not to mention Marsala wine, will soon bring the Sicilian saboteurs to their senses.

"Next we can eliminate the products of that major source of

sophisticated misdeeds, the United States. Country by country,

group by ethnic group, we will boycott until the streets of

Canada are safe once more.

"And when at last Canada is self-sufficient in crime we will

follow Mayor Phillips' plan to the letter. And teach us a

lesson we will never forget."

I would like the Attorney-General, when he comes back to the

House, to give me assurance that he will go to Ottawa.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he's out still. I mean he's still out.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): He's having a press

conference out there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to talk to

an empty chair — not that your chair is empty, Mr. Chairman.

But indeed the chair of the Attorney-General is empty. I

suppose that the Deputy is there and he and I could chat, but I

want to bring up something really important.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might want to talk about it more than the

Attorney-General does.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to bring up something really important — something,

Mr. Chairman, that concerns all of the people of British Columbia.

Before I bring it up I want to again read into the record a

bill which was introduced by the now Speaker in 1972, and it is

called

An Act to Establish the Office of Commissioner for

Grievances . The purpose of this Act, reading it, would be

for anyone who feels that they have been hard done by by the

government, or indeed anyone in the province, to go to the

office of the commissioner and state their grievance. Sort of

an ombudsman, I guess it would be, Mr. Member — much the same

as an ombudsman.

Now suppose, Mr. Member, that we had this office established

in British Columbia today. Had you owned shares in a particular

company and had sold, and as soon as you sold the price went up

two or three times what you had sold them for, and then you

find out later that the government had bought the company,

would you consider, Mr. Member, that you had been grieved by

the government? Would you consider that an offence?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): I'd think I'd been

taken.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'd consider that somebody had stolen your

shares, if they had indeed bought them at a very low price and

sold them at four or five times that price. Oh, you'd be pretty

worried. Yes, and I'd be pretty worried too.

Now, this was a private Member's bill. It evidently wasn't

adopted by the government of the day, but it does show the

concern of the then Speaker for the little people of British

Columbia. And then, indeed, our Attorney-General in 1972

introduced

an Act that's

An Act to Provide for Public

Scrutiny .

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hear, hear! That was a darn good

one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. That shows, Mr. Chairman, the concern

....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Since then it's been used by another

Member, which is petty larceny. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Have the public been "scrutinized" since then?

(Laughter.)

All joviality aside, this is a very serious matter because,

Mr. Attorney-General, I think you should — and you owe it to the

people of British Columbia — to conduct an inquiry into the

trading of shares in Columbia Cellulose prior to the government

acquisition of that company.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, I ask you

in all seriousness, sir, as the chief law officer in British

Columbia.... Shares in a particular company traded at the

average of

[ Page 1140 ]

30,680 shares a month for a 12-month period the previous

year, and I'm referring to 1972. Then in January of 1973, three

months prior to the government making an announcement that it

was going to purchase this company there were 294,976 shares

traded on the market.

The value of the shares in that three-month period, Mr.

Attorney-General, went from $2.95 — I'm talking about the

preferred shares — to $8.38 a share. That happened over a

three-month period. Mr. Attorney-General, keep in mind that

average trading in 1972 was approximately 30,500 shares, then

in the month of February there were 1,014,483 shares traded,

and in the month of March, 673,461 shares traded. I ask you,

Mr. Attorney-General, do you not consider that these should be

circumstances enough for you to conduct an inquiry into these

trades?

You mentioned yesterday, Mr. Attorney-General, that the

government made the announcement at the end of March to

purchase this company.

My question to you is: when did negotiations with this

company start? When did it first become knowledgeable to

anybody that the government was interested in buying Columbia

Cellulose?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't help you.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't help me?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, yes. I was just talking to myself.

It was done through another department, you see, and through

lawyers engaged....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that Members

not answer from their seats.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I do have that information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request, if the

Attorney-General does answer a question, that he rise so he can

use the mike.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I was just talking to myself.

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll sit down and let you talk to the

whole Legislature, because Hansard is not aware of you

talking to yourself. You shouldn't do that anyway; it's a bad

practice.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You get better

answers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the other day the Hon. Member asked

me for the number of officers engaged in drug work. The number is: 114 men in

the RCMP force, out of possibly 2,790 in the province, and they're split down

by areas; in the municipal forces, 27 men out of 1,335 who are assigned this

particular investigative and detection work.

The Hon. Member asked about the faculty of law. While the

selection of students in any faculty of law should depend upon

their quality excellence, not their background, whether it be

patrician or poor — wealthy or poor. It should depend on their

individual excellence and their ability to benefit, not only

themselves but society, from receiving that education. And that

should be equally available to people across the province — to

prove that excellence.

Nevertheless, the question of, possibly, boarding allowances

or other things of that kind...or a contract that they

serve, if they get through the law school, in a particular area

of the province.... As to the first, I suppose that's for the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) — there's another

passing of the buck. As to the second, it's a matter that we'd

be glad to consider, but we have not considered it at the

present time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, all right. What was the other one —

Col-Cel?

MR. PHILLIPS: I also pursued the....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Turkey!

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Columbia Cellulose...And Turkey too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On Turkey: Now, I'm speaking quickly on

the thing, but my first reaction is that while I strongly

favour this federal approach to help farmers to divert....

MR. PHILLIPS: The United States is already doing it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. But I don't think the

amount of their aid has been adequate and I think, therefore,

the Government of Turkey has been under tremendous financial

pressure to allow the resumption of poppy growing. That's a bit

of the problem.

It's all very well for us to say they shouldn't do that; I

know they shouldn't do it. But I think we should assist them to

make the right decision, if we can, in those circumstances.

As for a boycott, my first reaction is that that would be

counter-productive. We would get into a quarrel,

nation-to-nation, with the country of Turkey and, really, on

this thing I doubt if it would lead to a

[ Page 1141 ]

resolution. It might make the problem worse because they

would say to heck with you. Or if the United States did it as

well — to heck with you, we will not maintain surveillance over

our farmers as you are requesting because you're not being...we're engaged in kind of a trade war. That's something to think

about. But that's my feeling at the present time.

Now, in the case of Col-Cel, I think I answered that

yesterday but I might add something further to it. My concern

is whether there has been insider trading that hasn't been

reported, because we have those sections of our Securities Act

and our Companies Act, or whether there have been false insider

reports. I'm very much concerned with that, and we're looking

at that. We want to make sure those provisions are being

observed.

I'm also concerned as to whether there's been any leak, of

course — whether it's Col-Cel or any other company where

there's been a suggestion of a leak whereby some person has

illegally benefited from the leak. I might as well say, quite

frankly, in the case of Dunhill, which I think is subject to a

suit....

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't discuss it. It's before the

courts.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Okay, all right. I did the other day

though. Can you look that up and read what I said about it the

other day without being in contempt of court?

But in the case of Col-Cel, which is not before the court —

I don't think it is — I would have to go to the Securities

Commission of the Province of Ontario and present some evidence

of irregularity along lines I've mentioned, and ask them to

order the investigation of the share purchases and sales that

were made — and they were very massive — in that province. Now,

I can't go to get at those eastern sales without some evidence.

I'd need some prima facie case of a leak, insider information

or something of that kind. You know, some individual who bought...whereby a reasonable thing could be made out that he bought

unlawfully because he had inside or leaked information which

would be improper. But I would have to go in that case.

In the case that we can't mention, I did assign an order to

a bank, but it was in British Columbia because it was a bank

purchase and we didn't know who the real purchasers were. So,

to expedite the investigation, make sure it was thorough, I

signed an order as Attorney-General, which I'm entitled to do,

requiring the real beneficial people involved in that purchase

or sale to be shown up so that the Superintendent of Brokers

would know who they were.

But on the other one, I'd have to go to Ontario — that's where most of the trading

took place. But if anything comes to my attention suggesting irregularity, I

can assure you it will be traced down with all the resources we have at our

command.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, to the

Attorney-General: In my riding there is a place which is a

minimum security jail, called the Alouette River unit. At one

time it used to be one of the largest logging camps in the old

days — the Emerson-Abernathy logging show was there at one

time.

One of the things that's concerned me, and I've said this

earlier, I understand that there is no director there right

now. We are looking for a new and more capable person who can

work with people who have been sent to jail and who are often

chronically addicted to alcohol. We need a director who has an

understanding of the institutionalized alcoholic and can,

really, for the first time, give and stick with a programme of

rehabilitation.

I knew the previous director, I spent a lot of time with

him, but there was no real sense of direction as to what the

programme was. I feel in this field, which is a very high risk

field with many, many setbacks, that it's very necessary to

decide that — whether you're going to use the Johnson or

whatever programme and you stick with that programme and you

test it over quite a few years. There's a great deal of outlay

there. There's even a hospital in this facility and yet it's

really not used as a hospital. It's not used to the advantage

that it should be.

We have a Judge Varcoe, in Maple Ridge, who has asked the

question which I ask you — at least I like to get some kind of

feedback: Should chronic alcoholics who walk away from an

enforced place, a jail such as the ARU, be treated as

criminals? Should they, once they are picked up and sent back

to either this jail or to some other jail, have another fine

imposed on them?

I understand that under

section 64(

a) of the

Summary

Convictions Act many people feel this was never really intended

to add further penalties to this person who has the problem — a

health problem — namely in this case, alcohol, but it could be

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: 1974.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. This year.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, where's the money?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, because it is basically

coordination, we are using our research department, we are

using existing forces, so I think you will find the money

already exists. In addition to that we intend that a great many

of the policemen who are now engaged in clerical, court and

escort duties will be released from those duties, hopefully

pretty quickly, so there will be additional forces at our

disposal in terms of crime prevention and crime detection. We

hope to train sheriffs to assume these para-legal duties on a

fairly massive scale. We are hoping to use BCIT and maybe other

institutions so that this kind of thing will relieve the

policemen and we will have additional numbers at our

disposal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Attorney-General for going

this far with us. Then do I understand that you are going to

take the policemen who are presently engaged in court and

administrative work out of that field and back into crime

detection and so on, that somehow or other you will reach into

the City of Vancouver police force and begin to dictate to them

how they are going to run their affairs — the same as West

Vancouver and with the RCMP?

With whom do you replace these people? Recently your provincial court judges

have taken very serious exception to the fact that trained police officers are

not available in the courtrooms in order to protect the judges and others who

are assembled there from dangerous situations which have been known to arise.

They are opposed to taking the police out of the courtrooms, but you indicate

that this is going to be done.

That's one area where it seems to me that you are going to

have to exercise some direction and control over police forces

that already have their own officers and police commissions and

so on which regulate their function.

With regard to prosecutors: The City of Vancouver has its

prosecutors who work in conjunction with the investigative

branches of the police force. Other municipalities have

prosecutors. Certainly in the drug field, the Department of

Justice and the RCMP work together.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's changing, of course.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So I wonder is the Attorney-General going

to assume an area of responsibility with respect to the

prosecutor's office in the City of Vancouver? Will you be

staffing that directly from the Attorney-General's department

rather than the City of Vancouver?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I don't know whether that's in

Hansard , but the answer is yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So that's one definite change that will

be made in that kind of an organization.

With respect to sheriffs: Sheriffs have performed a law

enforcement role of somewhat minor nature over the years in

this province — far different than it is the case in other

jurisdictions. Are we going to find that on a county basis we

now have a new police officer functioning with the county,

namely the sheriff and his various deputies, such as we have in

the United States of America? Are we going to have RCMP,

sheriffs' officers, city police, all with conflicting

jurisdictions? — which is one of the major problems in the

United States of America, as to within whose jurisdiction does

a particular crime fall and who has responsibility for

investigation and prosecution. Perhaps the Attorney-General

could indicate that.

I happen to know the sheriff for the City of Vancouver; I

just don't see him with a big badge and a gun on his hip. That

just doesn't fit his image at all. Maybe the Attorney-General

could indicate what's going to happen in Quesnel, for

example?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there will be no

imposition on municipal forces, in the organized crime unit

we're talking about. There's been discussion; I am sure there

will be co-operation between the CIB and their participation,

and the municipal forces. It'll be totally co-operative.

[ Page 1146 ]

In terms of court security: the complaint of the judges is

not that they want policemen in the court; they want security.

The new sheriffs will be officers of the court and will not

have law enforcement powers, so there'll be no confusion

between them and policemen. They will, among other things,

provide that court security.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Pardon me, Mr. Attorney-General, sheriffs

are county officers, surely.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you read the bills that are before

this House, the sheriffs' force will be part of the one

administration of justice programme. We have a course training

programme laid out for these new court officers — not totally

new — which is quite interesting. It starts with: introduction;

history of sheriffs, which George Curtis is going to give;

note-taking and home study; human behaviour; law; peace officer

community relations; communications; jail operations and

procedures; escort procedures; first aid and self-defence....

I don't want to read the whole curriculum.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Knitting, crocheting, anecdotes....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a nine-week course, and it's going

to take a little while to develop these trained personnel, but

we're hopeful.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to follow

on a little bit on the question of judges and the courts. The

policy of the Attorney-General is to bring the so-called lower

courts under the direct control of the province.

I've been making some inquiries in various directions, and

I'm wondering if the Attorney-General is aware of certain

concerns which exist. Primarily that the justice committee of

his department, indeed his department itself, might well run

the risk of, in some way directly or indirectly, interfering

with the established powers and functions of the courts. Could

there be a danger that by....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member that there's a bill on the order paper

entitled the Provincial Court Amendment Act which I

believe covers the area he's now discussing.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm talking about principle. I'm not talking about

providing the facilities or the judges; I'm talking about a principle, namely,

to the effect that the more direct degree of involvement between the executive

and the judiciary, the more directly does there follow the possible complication,

even unwittingly or unintentionally, that the independence of the courts might

be brought under question.

I'd like to quote, for example, from the very excellent task

force report. I mentioned the other day how well Dr. Matheson

had evaluated the drug problem. But there's one little bit on

page 39 which bothers me a little bit. The task force report

states:

"Law enforcement judiciary and corrections have for too long preferred to isolate themselves not only

from the purview of the public but also from each other as

component sub-systems in the total criminal justice system."

I'm just suggesting, Mr. Chairman, in one or two ways that

the general philosophy of his department — the philosophy which

the Minister has stated — is one of very considerable change.

He introduced his own comments in this debate; he said that

things are happening very quickly in a very short period of

time.

While I've no wish to intrude upon the content of the bill

you've quoted, Mr. Chairman, I think a very serious principle

has to be kept in mind here. I think some very wise person once

said that there can be no liberty in the true sense of that

word without an independent judiciary.

I'm merely saying that the greater degree to which the

actual executive 'branch of government is shown to be connected

to the courts, the more we run the danger of the courts losing

their essential function and their independence.

In passing, Mr. Chairman, another factor came to light which

I'm sure does not intrude upon the bill either. It seems to me

a little bit like medicine where the general practitioner is

sort of looked upon as the basic unit, the guy who really gives

you primary care, and the specialist is somebody up on a higher

level.

I'm rather surprised at the tremendous difference in salary

between a provincial court judge and a supreme court judge —

despite the fact that the provincial court judge deals with

about 95 per cent of all the actual crimes which come before

the provincial court.

This is the kind of level of justice that very intimately

affects the liberty of the person concerned,

whereas the

supreme court judge who's getting 50 per cent more money every

year.... I don't know the exact figures, but he gets about 50

per cent more than the provincial court judge, and it seems to

me, in terms of the protection of the freedom and rights of the

individual, that it's at the provincial level and so-called

lower court that justice really begins to be applied.

It's no real argument to say, well, if he doesn't get fair

treatment at that level he can always go on to appeal. The fact

is, Mr. Chairman, our judicial system should provide

first-class justice at all levels, starting with the so-called

lower court level. It would seem to me that since appeals cost

a great deal of money and

[ Page 1147 ]

time, and are not within the reach of every individual, we

have to try and do our utmost to ensure the highest quality of

justice be provided at all court levels, starting at the lower

courts.

I drew the analogy between the general practitioner and the

specialist, and I'm not so sure that the supreme court judges

are so elevated or superior, to use the word again, that there

should be this tremendous difference in the attitude of the

administration, and getting down to the nitty-gritty, namely,

the remuneration which they receive. They do a very important

job. This is the first level at which a person committing a

crime has his criminality, or otherwise, assessed, and either

penalized or vindicated. I just think this is a point which

perhaps gets lost sight of.

Furthermore, it seems to me — and I know we can' t get

around this — but a judge being in the position he is in our

society.... I don't know how he bargains for his remuneration,

anyway. I'm pretty certain he hasn't got a union, and I'm

pretty certain he's not allowed to talk in public. He hardly

gets to tell anybody anything about himself when he's a judge.

In my view, and this is only a personal view, a judge pays

quite a sacrifice of his own freedom when he becomes a judge.

He doesn't get to invest in Dunhill on the inside or the

outside. In that regard, these are some of the facts I never

knew before until I started making some inquiries.

But the fact that the judge has such a responsible position.... And on top of that he sacrifices some of the freedoms,

really, and the privileges in our society which you and I take

for granted. But, as I say, he's not allowed to indulge in any

other business. He's not allowed to invest in the stock market

or do a lot of things which the ordinary citizen takes for

granted. Therefore, I just say in passing that that being so,

and with the cost of living and inflationary effects and so on, I hope that when we get around to

debating the bill, Mr. Attorney-General, we can discuss that in

more detail.

A question was raised, I think by the Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips), which interested me greatly. It is

something I have gone into in the past. It is this whole

question of international efforts to control the growing of

poppies in Turkey. This went back to the middle of March, 1972,

when the United States government allocated $35 million to

Turkey to replace the income which the Turkish farmer would otherwise

lose, because in 1971 Turkey had banned the voluntary

production of opium, or the growing of the poppies.

I think it should be put on record for the Member for South Peace River, and

indeed for the whole House, that at that time he didn't want anyone to take

this as any kind of permanent agreement that the Turkish farmer would not grow

poppies, and that it depended very much on the financial and economic consequences

which might flow from it, notwithstanding the $35 million subsidy.

The up-to-date information I have is that Turkey has chosen,

for financial and economic reasons — and presumably because of

pressure from the farmers — to make it legal once again to grow

as many poppies as they like. So I doubt that very much can be

achieved at the provincial level, other than to make

representation to our national government and, hopefully,

through the vehicle perhaps of the United Nations.

I certainly support entirely the Member for South Peace

River in his attempts to at least stop a large part of the

production of opium and opiate drugs.

Another subject I'd like the Attorney-General to comment

upon, a subject which is raised every single place I go, is the

question of abortion. As recently as this morning I was asked

about this in a programme. A common impression — and I'm not

being critical — but the man in the street, the woman in the

street, seems to feel that the Attorney-General has quite a

role to play in the whole matter of abortion.

It seems to be relatively unknown or overlooked that the law

governing abortion is written in Ottawa in the Criminal

Code. I know that doesn't excuse provincial politicians or

Attorneys-General from being involved, but I think it should be

emphasized, particularly for the interest of people who, quite

rightly, express their opposition to abortion, that the only

answer to making it less than it is today is in either taking

it out of the Criminal Code or rewriting the Criminal

Code.

But for the repeated emphasis and approaches that are made —

I am sure, to all of us in this House, and possibly more so to

myself because of my medical training — it is not possible for

the provinces appreciably to change the present situation we

have with relation to abortion. The relevant

section of the

Criminal Code is written in such a way that we, in

effect, have abortion on request.

The federal government chose to create abortion committees

in hospitals which, in effect, put onto the shoulders of the

physician his need to interpret what he Criminal Code

was saying, and the Criminal Code uses such vague

language to the effect that any woman of whom the life or

health may or would be likely to be endangered, or some

language of this nature.... It's so all-inclusive that you can

find almost any adequate reason to justify abortion.

I have the feeling, Mr. Chairman — and I don't know what the

Attorney-General feels about this — but I'm having sufficient

information and approach to me being made by enough people that

I think the Attorney-General should take, this up at the next

meeting, whenever it is, of the national government and the

provincial Attorneys-General.

There is a tremendous feeling among a very substantial

number of people that abortion is too

[ Page 1148 ]

readily available in this country. I'm not here to argue

whether it is or it isn't. I'm here to represent views that are

brought to me very frequently in almost every part of the

province where I go; and I don't like to sound evasive to these

people by saying,"Well, it's a federal government problem."

Technically, it certainly is.

I do feel that I would like to hear from the

Attorney-General as to whether this is a priority topic at

meetings which take place between the provincial and federal

authorities, and to what degree the Attorney-General feels

there should be any kind of public inquiry or otherwise.

Of course, this would not be in his jurisdiction because

probably the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) might choose

to conduct inquiries. But there's enough said through all the

media and by individual citizens; this is a very difficult

public issue and, if anything, the law seems to go beyond what

many people feel is correct in our modern society.

The person who talked to me today felt that the frequency of

abortion and the ease with which a person can have an abortion

today is simply opening the door to euthanasia, and that the

thinking will drift very clearly and steadily towards the

elimination — if that's the right word — of elderly people in

our midst, and that this very lighthearted and rather easy way

in which the unborn are being killed will very readily lead to

the thinking that other persons in our society, for one reason

or another, are not wanted. That is all abortions are really

carried out for: because somebody doesn't want the child that

has been conceived.

My personal feeling is that this, indeed, is a very

dangerous precedent: that if it becomes all too easy to kill

the unborn child, it may not be too long before it becomes

thought decent, shall we say, and not at all inhuman, perhaps,

to encourage taking the lives of unwanted elderly people.

I feel there are some occasions when abortion is justified,

but I personally feel that the degree to which it is being

carried out is not in keeping with the need. It is my feeling

that many of the abortions, while actually falling within the

strict technicalities of the criminal code.... I don't think

anyone is breaking the code; it's simply because of its very

loose and vague definition.

But I would like the Attorney-General to be aware. Perhaps

he himself is not contacted as frequently as I am, but there is

a very substantial number of people who are deeply concerned

about the legislation governing abortion. I would hope that the

Attorney-General can tell us that there will be discussions

with the federal authorities.

There are some general points I think are worth mentioning, Mr. Chairman. I've

talked about the lower court facilities. I wonder if the Attorney-General is

considering making the courts more conveniently available to the individual

citizen. To what degree could we anticipate that justice might be dispensed

on a Saturday morning, for example? I gather that in the United States they

have night courts and justice is dispensed fairly promptly after the offence

sometimes. At least people don't have to take time off from work in order to

attend in court.

I presume that this would involve extra personnel. Perhaps

the Attorney-General could talk about that.

I see that the Premier is back in his place. The Premier has

made the point that we must make good use of our universities

and our school facilities and so on. I am entirely in agreement

with that, and I'd just say how about court facilities? Should

we not be making a greater effort to make full-time use of our

court facilities?

What about fees to jurors? I made the inquiry and somebody

told me; I've forgotten the year it was last changed. Was it in

1965 or 1966? Somewhere in the late 60s, I understand; seven or

eight years ago. We're all worried about rents and inflation

and wage control and so on, but what about the juror who has to

take time off his work to go and give evidence? If it was worth

(whatever it was worth) $10 a day, it must be worth a great

deal more today.

In the same way I was trying to emphasize that we shouldn't

overlook the judge's role in society, I don't think we should

overlook this pretty important input to the whole judicial

system, namely the juror. Jurors sometimes can be held up over

a very considerable period of time playing their role in the

justice system. I'd be interested to hear about that.

Dr. Matheson in his task force report also makes it very

clear that if there's any group in our society that really

isn't getting their fair share in the justice system it has to

be the Indian population. Unquestionably, the Indian citizen

has less chance of getting proper defence, has less chance of

understanding what on earth is going on and has a greater

chance of having a heavier penalty simply because he can't

afford to pay the fine.

We've heard a lot of discussion and proposals about the

native Indian and his eagerness to settle land claims and his

eagerness to become recognized as being just the same as any

other Canadian citizen. But in our criminal justice system as

of today, Mr. Attorney-General, I don't think the Indian is

getting a fair break.

The Indians constitute 2.5 per cent of our population in

British Columbia but they represent one in seven of every

person in jail. It may even be higher, the Member says, but I

think that was the figure quoted in the task force report. I

can't find the exact page in the report. Anyway, the proportion

of Indians in jail compared to their proportion of the

population is quite unrealistic. It means several things.

Frequently, the Indian person is not fully informed as to his

rights when he is arrested. He

[ Page 1149 ]

frequently pleads guilty, presumably out of ignorance or in

the absence of counsel or, more often, in the absence of money

to get himself a defence. I know the Attorney- Genera I has

talked about making more court workers available to help

Indians.

There was an

article in The Vancouver Sun not too

long ago which very clearly pointed out what could be done. I

forget the worker's name who had been arrested himself some 14

years ago but is now one of the leading workers in supporting

the cause of Indians who come before the courts. I wonder if

the Attorney-General can tell us to what degree these services

are going to be increased. On that subject, Dr. Matheson's

report should be mentioned again.

In passing, I might say that I consider the Matheson report — not so much the part to do with drugs which we've already

covered, Mr. Attorney-General — but the report per se in my

view is one of the best reports on any topic that's come before

this House in the years I've been here. It's precise; it's to

the point; the statements are backed up by figures and facts.

If there is any problem, the print is a bit small. Maybe I'm

getting to the age where I need glasses, I don't know. But

apart from the rather small print which could be larger, the

way in which this report is written and the precise, logical,

accurate way in which you can pick up the meat of the report

very quickly I think deserves credit. I've got the highest

regard for Dr. Matheson as a person and I certainly think this

report must rank among the best that has ever been brought

before this House for our study.

He goes on to mention, as I said earlier, that we have far

too many people in jail who don't need to be there. The reason

some of them have to be there is that we don't have probation

officers to provide the alternative kind of service. You can't

have it both ways. If we're going to save money on not having a

high jail population, we have to spend the money on the

supervisory service which is the alternative. The Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) touched on this already.

It is a fact that under the heading of probation the first

thing Dr. Matheson says is that an immediate — he uses the word

immediate, a pretty urgent word — an immediate increase of 58

probation officers be authorized to deal with the present

caseload and range of services which they supply to the court

and the community.

Furthermore, under organization, he says that an appointment

of a chief probation officer be made as soon as possible.

Perhaps the Attorney-General could tell us whether we're going

to get the 58. I think he said 30, which is really only half

the number needed. I'd like to know if in fact we are to have a

chief probation officer.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I talked not too long ago to a probation

officer and we discussed the importance of the pre-sentence report. I'm sure

the Premier would also be very interested in this because of his experience

in social work. This is a vital part of deciding what is an appropriate sentence

for a person who has committed a crime.

The probation officer told me there's a real danger that he

just becomes what he called a "pre-sentence-report factory." In

order to learn the essential nature of the prisoner, his

background, his social problems, whether he's got a job or

unemployed, his family problems, his health, a vast variety of

factors come into the making up of a proper pre-sentence

report. I think he quoted to me that something reasonable would

be 8 to 12 a month. But it's at least double that number which

the probation officers are expected to cope with. Almost

without exception they spend almost all of their time on

pre-sentence report making when they feel that a greater amount

of available time to be in the field and to carry out some of

the other duties they have would enable them to do a better

job. Perhaps the Attorney-General could respond to that

question too.

Is it simply that there are not enough of them? If there

were more probation officers, would each of them, in effect,

have fewer pre-sentence reports to make up and then be in a

position to take a wider view of his function in the criminal

justice system?

I don't want to talk again about the actual jail facilities.

I've touched on one particular jail, namely Wilkinson Road. But

there was another excellent report written which dealt

specifically with correctional facilities. I think the

Attorney-General is to be commended for making that kind of

up-to-date information available. "B.C. Corrections Facility

Descriptions" it's called.

I can't agree entirely with that report. It isn't in the

same class as the Matheson report because I don't agree with

it's description of Wilkinson Road jail for a start. But at

least it gives MLAs an opportunity to be much better informed

about what exists so that we can discuss what we should be

planning for the future.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I can't finish without just saying

one word about the drug problem. I hope the Attorney-General

will take steps to involve the parents of drug addicts in some

productive way to develop some of the programmes which would be

essential if Dr. Matheson's programme were to work.

Looking at Dr. Matheson's programme, it tries to blend two

systems. It tries to give the drug addict a reasonable chance

to be his own salvation without being incarcerated in jail. On

the other hand, it does provide control. If the addict is given

the opportunity to be treated in a measure of freedom, and by

choice he decides to break that regulation, he then goes back

to some form of compulsory detention.

I would predict that the greatest danger in Dr. Matheson's

programme not working will be in what

[ Page 1150 ]

happens to the addict when he's given his freedom under some

form of supervision. It's that form of supervision that's the

key to the whole plan. In my experience with the Concerned

Citizens' Association the parents, who often have received

rather a rude awakening by finding that their son or daughter

is on drugs, suddenly feel that they do want to be involved in

finding solutions and participating in the treatment.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could give us some idea

where Dr. Matheson's suggestions stand at the present time. Are

we getting to the point of planning the actual facilities which

would be required for this modified degree of detention and

treatment? Are we laying out a Programme whereby the necessary

social workers, parents and ancillary personnel can be

available when a drug addict having broken the law is brought

within this, what I might call a semi-detention, semi-prison

type of system whereby you don't just put the person behind

bars for 90 days and then put them out in the street?

The whole idea is to have a measure of control, a measure of

detention, plus some form of compulsory treatment, plus help

and assistance and various forms of guidance by people when

that person is released from whatever period of compulsory

detention he is sentenced to.

I have a feeling that the Attorney-General accepts the

concept and I'll take the licence of suggesting, Mr. Chairman,

that the Deputy Attorney-General certainly accepts this

concept. He's a young man with a progressive outlook and I just

know that he realizes, as you do, Mr. Attorney-General, that

the present system is a complete and absolute failure. I think

with people such as your Deputy and Dr. Matheson, we actually

can be optimistic as to what can be accomplished in this

province.

But let's not start the Matheson programme without the

proper facilities and the proper personnel; otherwise it will

fail and then the system that was proposed will be condemned,

not because essentially it has a lot of promise, but because

you haven't got the personnel and the facilities to make it

work. While I would certainly encourage the Attorney-General to

get ahead with it, I would also suggest that we have the proper

programme ready to roll before you put it into effect.

Otherwise, we might well indeed have some serious

complications.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, perhaps before things slip

out of my mind, I might reply.

I completely recognize the first point the Hon. Member for Oak Bay made, that

there must be independence of the judiciary. I'm charged with the administration

of justice, which is sort of the management of the justice system, in my position.

But I am not charged in any respect with the adjudication that should take place

in that system, and I think that the independence of the judiciary must be jealously

guarded.

As a matter of fact, there's going to be a little amendment

to one of the bills on the order paper — I have to say this

quickly because I'd be terribly out of order — just to make

sure that that principle is not being interfered with by

current legislation.

On the question of salaries of provincial court judges,

again I agree. I think their level is now $26,500; Supreme

Court judges are $38,000 or $39,000. There'll have to be

adjustments and there will be adjustments that should be

substantial, as part of the overall changes in provincial

service in April, or soon thereafter. We must give our

provincial court the standing that the importance of their work

merits. I appreciate what the Member has said in that

respect.

On abortion: I'm sure that will be on the agenda. I say I'm

sure because the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Otto Lang, has

raised this matter. It's his legislation, but I think from what

he has said that this will be re-discussed at the next meeting

of the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys-General of the

provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's called "passing the buck".

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it really is, but if he's passing

the buck in terms of receiving the opinions of Ministers of

Health and other people, I don't blame him for that.

Fees to jurors should be improved, and we should look at

that. I don't think there should be total recovery of lost

income because I think there's an element of public service

there too, which should be recognized by the people concerned

and appreciated by the community.

Vancouver Provincial Court is sitting Saturdays on a fairly

regular basis, and as part of the whole business of the reform

of the delivery of legal services we must make those courts

more accessible.

With respect to Indians receiving fines that in many cases

they can't pay, I would hope that before the end of this

session, and perhaps even before the end of my estimates,

legislation will be introduced on that subject also.

AN HON. MEMBER: When will that come up?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know how long the

estimates will be.

In terms of a chief probation officer as recommended in the

report: Tony Sheridan is that person at the present time,

although he doesn't bear that title, but that has been

implemented. He's the Director of Community Corrections, but

one of his things is Chief of Probation Officers.

I wish we could say that we could have 58 qualified

probation officers right now. We can't,

[ Page 1151 ]

because they have to be found and trained, and we should

only take ones who are really dedicated a bit to that job, not

just take everybody. But we have provided in the estimates for

30 more at the present time and I hope that we'll be able to

find the bodies.

In terms of the drug problem, I must point out that I am

very much concerned with it because it is now my unfortunate

duty to prosecute addiction and to incarcerate addiction.

Therefore we have contributed to the research material in this

very important field, and we must. Nevertheless, the matter is

under the other department, and, I think, by

an Act of the

Legislature, is setting up the Drug and Alcohol Commission.

There's been not only Matheson's contribution to this field

but also the reports of other bodies and research institutes

here and other parts of the world. I am sure they are being

actively considered by the Drug and Alcohol Commission. I

certainly hope that these alternative facilities are brought

into being because it will relieve me of the consequences of a

jail population which might be 50 per cent drug related, and

everything that flows from that. So I hope for progress in that

field.

MR. WALLACE: I'm really quite concerned about the way, Mr.

Attorney-General.... And pardon me if I misinterpreted what

you just said, but I get the horrible feeling that you're just

trying to wash your hands of your responsibility in the drug

problem and the association.... I'm sorry, but that's the

impression you leave.

The fact is you're doing your job to prosecute people who

are breaking the law, whether it's because they're on drugs or

not, and I agree that is your function. But in case you haven't

got the message, I'm saying that the treatment of the drug

addiction problem in this province, if it is given entirely

over to Stein and the commission, will get worse not better.

Now, I don't know how often we have to say it. I don't know to

what degree you, Mr. Attorney-General, and the Minister of

Health and the Minister of Human Resources sit down and hammer

this thing out in a realistic fashion and look at the

facts.

One person who indeed did look at the facts was Dr.

Matheson. You've heard from many people on this side of the

House, and I know that many of your own Members...I know that

your own Deputy believes in this. He took

part in the meetings

I've attended. This is a whole new, realistic, more optimistic

prospect if the Matheson plan can be implemented. But the

Matheson plan depends on having the appropriate kind of

legislation which charts this middle course between

permissiveness and complete incarceration in a jail without

treatment.

It seems to me we run the risk of going from one side of the scale to the other.

We seem to have agreed that the present system is just a failure. To dump the

person in jail and get him out of the way until he commits the next offence

seems to be the path we're on.

The alternative, in my view.... I'm sorry, but that 39-page

report I quoted from the other day just has no meat in it at

all, no realistic, credible proposals. It just talks in a loose, inexact, inconsequential way which really offers no solid

proposals. So, through you, Mr. Chairman, when I hear the

Attorney-General say, "Well this really isn't my

responsibility," I'm sorry, Mr. Attorney-General, there

has to remain in the whole drug addiction field what I would

call an enlightened degree of legal control; that you can,

indeed, put a person in a facility and take away his freedom

and compel him to have treatment, or at least take him out of

the stream of society.

It really bothers me when I think of the hours and the

effort that your staff have put in to coming up with the draft

proposal that Dr. Matheson presented. When I think of the

number of people that I have talked to in the drug field —

again I must come back to the parents.

I've had very substantial exposure to parents who have sons

and daughters addicted to heroin and who have fallen foul of

the criminal justice system. They have been putting their

opinions forward for a very long time to have just something

like the system that Dr. Matheson suggests. It really bothers

me when I hear the Attorney-General say, Mr. Chairman, that

he's just sort of waiting for the day when he's going to give

the whole thing over. Indeed, he says the legislation has

already given it over to the drug commission.

I'm not going to argue the

interpretation of the

legislation. All I'm saying is that I'd be stunned, if I had

been stupid enough in the previous session of the House to vote

for that legislation, to find that the very people who have had

the most down-to-earth, sensible, productive proposals are

going to be right out of the picture and it's going to be run

by social workers on the Drug and Alcohol Commission. If that's

what happened I'm....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh! The Premier's affronted. I didn't mean it

in the sense that only the social workers were to be

involved.

I'm so convinced of the need for some compromise approach

whereby the addict will always be subject to some measure of

compulsion and control of his problem. I haven't got this other

report in front of me, but at one point I remember distinctly,

for example, that it says they will only deal with addicts

referred to the commission by a physician. There are all kinds

of addicts who never go

[ Page 1152 ]

near a physician, don't want to go near a physician, and if

they do go near a physician he's usually too busy to help them

anyway. So I just take that isolated paragraph out of the

report to show how unrealistic it is in coming to any kind of

grips with the problem.

We've had quotes about the Japanese system. I've read about

it and it's got a lot to offer. I think probably our society

would not accept so rigid a degree of restriction of freedom,

but restriction of freedom is a relative thing.

I do feel that you would have tremendous community support,

Mr. Attorney-General, for implementing what is a kind of a

compromise system whereby we don't go from just incarceration,

with no effort to rehabilitate, over to a kind of a permissive

approach where you set up various clinics where really I can't

see how much is going to be achieved, and indeed where emphasis

seems to be placed on replacement therapy with methadone, which

is highly debatable. It's highly questionable whether in the

long run that replacement therapy achieves very much.

What we need is, first of all, to keep the addict in some

kind of facility where he does not have complete freedom, but

at the same time is not penned up behind bars in a cell, and

where we have people who can help that person — medical

personnel, social workers, psychiatrists, whatever is

needed.

I really am disturbed to hear the Attorney-General suggest

that really all he does is prosecute the offender and leave the

Drug and Alcohol Commission to deal with the other aspects. If

I misunderstood you, Mr. Attorney-General, I apologize. Maybe

you'd like to comment on what I've said.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I've heard that Colonel McGuigan

is not too well these days in the Royal Jubilee Hospital. He's

certainly been a very, very faithful servant to the Province of

British Columbia and I think all Members wish him a very speedy

recovery.

That brings to mind, Mr. Chairman, the Liquor Control Board,

where we find $111 million net profit and still no thought of

customer convenience.

It's not really the newest thing in the world, Mr. Chairman,

to speak of refrigeration; yet it's impossible in the Province

of British Columbia to enter a liquor store and buy cold beer.

There's absolutely no reason for that.

I think it's also high time that there was greater choice

and greater selectivity in the spirits, and specifically the

wines.

There's got to also be a secondary use for containers. The liquor bottles could

well be structured at the outset whereby they could be used as lamps or glasses,

or made into water pitchers, or something along that line. It's total nonsense

that they have to be absolutely thrown away.

Now, there's a very interesting little

article dealing with

wines, and it was written by a man by the name of George Bain.

It's called "Champagne is for Breakfast," and it was

published in New Press in Toronto in 1972. I'd just like to

read to the Hon. Attorney-General certain of the criticisms

contained in it and ask him whether or not the situation that

we have in B.C. is improved, which it does not seem to have

been, and, if not, why it is not improved. He says this:

"For the scant service that he receives, the Canadian wine

buyer gets no compensating economies."

Then he gives some examples:

"At the time when the British Columbia board was selling its

one claret of what is called a 'classified growth' at $6.05 —

Pontet Canet...."

The price went up later by 90 cents a

bottle, and I think it's standing now at $7 plus, isn't it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well that's not....

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: Just let me finish this, in any event. The

article states

this:

"...D. Silelin in New York listed four of at least equal

standing at roughly $3.25 or $4.40 a bottle.

"The pricing policies of the Canadian provincial liquor

commissions are, to put it in as restrained a way as possible,

mysterious."

We have certainly had mysterious pricing policies in

B.C.

"In most cases the commissions flatly refused to reveal what

those policies are."

Those policies have never, ever been revealed to the people

in this province.

"The three largest provinces, Ontario, Quebec and British

Columbia, all acknowledge that the mark-ups they apply are

different for wines produced within the province, within the

country, and abroad, but still no explanation to the general

public of the formula that is used.

"One of the greatest success stories in Canadian business,

it has been so written in several places, is that of the little

firm called Domestic Wines and By-products Ltd. formed by

Pascal Capozzi in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia in

1931. Its first president was a young Kelowna hardware merchant

who later went into politics. After a slow start Calona Wines,

as the firm became known, bloomed in the 1950s and 1960s, and

by 1968 this became a Canadian success story. The control was

sold for $9.6 million to U.S. Food Products

[ Page 1153 ]

Standard Brands.

"Four or more of every 10 bottles of wine sold in B.C. were Calona Wines."

Is that still the situation

today?

"This is perhaps not surprising considering that the Liquor

Control Board of British Columbia lists no fewer than 61 of

them by name. The 61 Calona Wines listed made only three fewer

than the combined total of those of France, Germany, Italy,

Spain and Portugal, Europe's five leading producers.

"The British Columbia government, both by discriminatory

pricing and the relative non-listing of foreign wines, gives

the same generous support to a provincial industry in which the

leader already holds 40 per cent of the market."

Is that still

the situation today?

Not only are the three provinces which he is referring to

bilking their customers of a proper freedom of choice for a

start; they are also on questionable grounds

constitutionally.

"The regulation of trade and commerce lies solely within the authority of the federal parliament and

the discriminatory mark-ups applied in these cases by the

provinces constitute both an interference with trade within

Canada and an intrusion upon Ottawa's rights to regulate the

importing of goods into the country."

Is that true? Have you

ever posed a test case on that point, Mr. Attorney-General?

What percentage, Mr. Attorney-General, of B.C. wine is made

from B.C. grapes? I gather that in Ontario 100 per cent of

Ontario wine is indeed made by Ontario grapes.

How is the shelving process in the Province of B.C.? Who

determines what wines or what liquor commodity will be placed

closest to the cash register? Is it on a preference basis? Is

it on the basis of first come, first served? Is it on the basis

of the greatest number of sales? Or is it regulated and turned

over from time to time? The people don't know that.

Secondly, Mr. Attorney-General, does the Liquor Control

Board do any true shopping, in any sense of the word? Once the

spirits get on the shelf we've got a completely protected

market. It's impossible to buy or sell spirits in the Province

of British Columbia except through this particular facility. So

it's a monopoly unto itself, but it's also a monopoly of choice

and it is dictated choice to the B.C. public.

In our Act, Mr. Attorney-General, is there anything about

disclosing the chemical breakdown of wines? If added

preservatives are put into wine, should not the public know

about that? I don't believe there is such a provision within

our statute. I gather that there is that type of thing, say, in

Washington state.

Secondly, how are these wines purchased in the first place

by the Liquor Control Board? Are there professional tasters?

Should there not be a wine counselors? Do we have that kind of

a person in the Province of B.C.?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Ask the Minister of Health. There are

lots of volunteers.

MR. GARDOM: Most of all, Mr. Attorney-General, the point

that I'm stressing in this little talk is that the consumer is

the person who is getting the short end of the stick here, and

he is certainly entitled to a much fairer break than he's ever

had before.

I'm now going to spend a couple of words talking, Mr.

Attorney-General, about stock write-downs.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is this Can-Cel again?

MR. GARDOM: No, it's not Can-Cel. This is something that is

happening in the Province of B.C. It is an extremely confusing

topic, but I'd like to give you an example.

A company in 1967 sold its assets to another company on the

basis of six shares for one. Then in 1973 they were sold,

written down again on the basis of 10 shares for one, and then

a little later, a month or two later in 1973, they were written

down on the basis of five shares for one.

In order to make this rather simple arithmetic, Mr.

Attorney-General, let's say you start with 6,000 shares. So the

6,000 shares a person pays for are written down to 1,000 shares

in 1967. In 1973 the remaining 1,000 shares are written down 10

for one, so the fellow ends up with 100 shares. A month or so

later in the same year the 100 shares are written down on a

basis of five for one, so the fellow ends up with 20

shares.

This is just great. He starts off with 6,000 shares and

within a period of five or six years he ends up with 20. He

ends up with 20.

Now the point I wish to make here, Mr. Attorney-General, is

that this apparently is within the law — maybe barely within

the law, but it's within the law. But the general public are

not informed on the whole of this write-down process and are

totally ignorant of what's happening to their dollars in it. In

most cases they have no rights in preventing it occasioning,

because the insiders with control of the bulk of the stock can

control the write-down, and can control the disposition of the

company that's concerned.

So why not, in order to see that the public can receive some

independent advice, establish a public investment bureau? It's

to protect the investor. It could perform a counseling function

whereby an investor or a borrower could make inquiries and

[ Page 1154 ]

could seek assistance and receive expertise and get help

before he enters into an investment or a loan to see if he's

getting a fair deal, or if he happens to be scrooged

throughout.

The bureau would be able to consider all of the facts — the

kind of stock concern, the assets that the company might have,

the degree of risk, the amount of money that was required in a

borrowing situation, or the duration of loan, the amount of

bonus, interest, and so forth and so on.

Rather than always looking at the thing after the fact and

providing some very, very limited remedies which we have here

for protection of people to get themselves out of usurious loan

transactions — but not necessarily usurious stock transactions — why not cut it off at the beginning, and at least provide a

vehicle whereby people can come in and obtain the kind of

advice and the kind of assistance that I'm speaking of?

I think then we might find these investors and these

borrowers not being hooked from the outset.

I again reiterate, Mr. Attorney-General, and I find it

rather appalling that this continues to be missed.... I've

spoken to you about it as recently as yesterday and in the last

session and to every other Attorney-General that we've ever had

here. We've got to have some powers dealing with misleading

advertising. There's still none in the Province of B.C.

You just have to look at the pages in the classified

section: trips to Hawaii, $115. There is nobody who can go to

Hawaii on that trip for $115. Fortunately this has been

exposed, to an extent, via the hotline people, but that's not

enough. It is purely and simply come-on advertising. There is

no trip to Hawaii for $115. It's $115 plus, plus, plus. And

that is misleading advertising.

Again I reiterate, dealing with the word guarantee, that if

people are preaching guarantees in advertisements, it has to be

made the law of B.C. that they've got to explain how, where,

why or by whom the guarantee arises. That's got to be done. The

general public have got to know that a guarantee is only as

good as the worth of the value of the guarantor. Otherwise it's

not worth a nickel. It's not worth a nickel.

One of the Attorneys-General we had, I think way back in

1969, did agree that the word guarantee in newspaper

advertisements could indeed be misleading if it wasn't

explained how, where or by whom the guarantees were made. He

suggested that one course would be either removing the

advertisements in question, or requiring them to be more

specific.

I'm asking you that, Mr. Attorney-General: why not make it

the law of the Province of B.C. that if you're going to utilize

the word guarantee in an advertisement, you've got to be

specific as to what the worth of the guarantee is, or it

doesn't go into the advertisement at all?

Now I'm going to belabour this question of the woodsman's

lien thing forever if you're not going to do anything about it.

I'm going to read to you the judgment of the court of appeal. I

just want you to get the message, because I do know that you

are busy.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Can I just say that as a result of the

Hon. Member's representations — and I do have a feeling of deja

vu about this speech a little bit — we did ask the Law Reform

Commission investigating mechanics' liens to be sure that the

question of woodsmen's liens was included in their study and

recommendations.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the message has been received.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right.

MR. GARDOM: Then the speech is short.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Very briefly, I am glad that the Hon.

Member's become a convert to the socialist faith. In purchasing

shares he doesn't say that the rule of caveat emptor should

apply any more. He's saying there should be some kind of a

semi-official body which will help him with his

investments.

MR. GARDOM: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Okay, I'm glad to hear that, because I

kind of felt that you were tending in that direction. We're the

socialists over here; you're supposed to be the caveat emptor

boys over there.

MR. GARDOM: Are you trying to set up a secret meeting?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's for us to.... I may end up

joining that darned united party if you keep confusing things

and keep making out that we should mothball investors to the

extent that you're suggesting. But don't forget; in the new

Companies Act — that writing-down that you mentioned — it's

much harder because shareholders now have to approve a

reorganization of a company.

I don't know the case you're talking about but I'll bet it

didn't happen under the new Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: LCB: I just want to say in terms of

container return and everything else that we have instructed

that there shall be a management survey in respect to the

Liquor Control Board, which is a $111 million industry —

profit, not

[ Page 1155 ]

the gross. It's a big business being carried on by a few

very dedicated public servants — and I pay tribute to Mr.

Bruce, Vic Woodlands and the others — but under difficulty.

It has not been looked at in terms of modern management

techniques. I don't think it's ever been looked at in that way.

So we have a management survey underway; I think the firm is

Urwick, Currie and Partners of the City of Toronto — maybe

that's bad. Have they got an office out here? I hope they have

because then we won't.... But we've looked for the best firm

and we want to assist the management in running what is a very

big business.

I won't say anything more about that at the present time

because I think that's important. I look on it as an aid to the

existing management of the LCB — not a criticism of their

efforts, but an assistance. They recognize it as such. In terms

of listing and other things, that too is being actively

considered. There is a listing policy now before the Liquor

Control Board, which is Neil Davidson and his two associates.

They'll be coming back....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Listing policy? Well, it's all laid out

in the public accounts committee. But that is being looked at.

Listing policy is being reviewed by the Liquor Control Board —

that's the three-man supervisory group — and they will make

recommendations to the government. I'm not pushing them. I know

you might say,"Why haven't they already made their

recommendations, and why haven't we changed things in terms of

giving people a more sophisticated system in which there will

be greater selection and so forth?" But I'm not pushing them

because it's a big subject, and they will be making their

recommendations.

MR. GARDOM: You are informing the House, Mr.

Attorney-General, that the board is considering the listing

problem. The people who should have a voice in that are the

consuming public, not the administration. It's not an

administrative function; it's a question of public choice.

The public in B.C. would love to have a wide selection of

California wines; that's what they want to have. Just ask them;

just ask that very question and you'll have a resounding "yes."

So, please don't leave the decision up to the board as to what

the listing is going to be. It's always been the board's

decision and it's always been criticized. That's the very point

I'm trying to make.

Another thing: whatever is wrong with a liquor company if it chooses to sell

a case of liquor on a basis of a loss leader — say 12 bottles for the price

of 11? That happens in all of the states; you've visited in the United States.

It doesn't seem to send anybody to rack and ruin. If Gordon's Gin wishes to

give a discount one month, why can't they do it? What's wrong with that?

You are shaking your head. You're not even jolly. Well,

what's wrong with it? There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

In B.C., insofar as liquor distribution is concerned, we have

been tax-oriented and board-oriented but never

consumer-oriented. The consumer has got the worst end of the

stick — if stick is the right word. The shallow end of the

bottle.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let's keep the merchandising tricks out

of the liquor stores.

MR. GARDOM: Merchandising tricks!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, gimmicks.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Pretty soon you'll have a tiger in

your tank.

MR. GARDOM: It's not a gimmick. A sale of liquor is

certainly not a gimmick. If there happens to be an oversupply

of very good wine and a person wishes to buy it and get a break

on a bottle or two, they should be entitled to do that.

You know, it's the people we are supposed to be

representing, not the Liquor Control Board.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): We have had a fairly wide-ranging

debate in the Attorney-General's estimates this year —

everything from euthanasia, abortion and rape to poppy

cultivating in Turkey. The debate has been fairly wide-ranging,

but I would like to bring it back to prisons because this is

something that I mentioned in my contribution to the throne

speech debate last year when we had a full, wide-ranging throne

speech debate.

At that time I offered to assist the Attorney-General in

taking a wrecking bar to Oakalla. I am pleased to see that he

made a speech to the John Howard Society's annual meeting in

Victoria, saying that we are phasing out the institutional-type

prison system. Although I understand that one of the Members

for Burnaby would like to be the first to wield that wrecking

bar, I would ask him that when he is thinking about it, will he

reserve at least the west wing for me because I worked there

for two years. I hope we can sit down later and work out an

agreement on who is going to wreck which.

I don't think you can talk about knocking prisons down, and

destroying the institutional type of prison system, without

considering the alternatives. I believe I agree with the Member

for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) when he said

that a lot of work has to be done with the public before we

start breaking down this old system and before we start going

out into community corrections — taking

[ Page 1156 ]

inmates, taking people out into the communities.

A lot of work has been done in the United States and other

countries....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Encourage me to make that speech

again.

MR. SKELLY: I don't want to encourage you to make that

speech again because most Liberals make their speeches every

year since they were elected, and, really, I don't want you to

be repetitive on that.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Recycled!

MR. SKELLY: Well, they've had a head start on you.

I would like to refer you to an

article in Time magazine,

July 24, 1972, that outlines some of the alternatives that have

been used in the United States, and have been used fairly

successfully, I might add.

A very few years ago a task force in the State of Wisconsin

recommended that all institutional prisons in that state be

phased out by 1975, although that task force, I understand, was

very weak on alternatives.

In the State of Massachusetts, when Mr. Jerome Miller became

Commissioner for Juvenile Detention Problems in 1969, they had

institutions in that State that housed up to 1,000 juveniles up

to the age of 17 years old. This was back in 1969. In 1972

there was only one such institution left in Lancaster,

Massachusetts, and that institution housed only 20 people. The

rest had been phased out, had been placed in group homes in

communities and had been placed in foster homes. Much the same

thing had been done to those institutions as has been done with

the Willingdon School for Girls, and I would like to see more

of that in the prison system in this province.

An interesting comment on this, as far as finances goes, is

that where it cost $250,000 to house 12 people in a large

institutional type of boarding school, under the new system,

where delinquents are kept in group homes in communities, the

cost for 12 people is only $85,000. So there is a tremendous

saving both in human terms and in financial terms in that type

of breaking down of the institutional system.

Other states have also followed this community correction

programme. In states such as Florida where they have 28

community correction centres, such as North Carolina, where

they really pioneered this system 15 years ago, they have a

recidivism rate of something in the nature of 2 per cent,

whereas institutions have rates which range as high as 80 or 90

per cent.

I welcome the speech that the Attorney-General made to the John Howard Society

annual meeting in Victoria a few days ago, and I would like to see us proceed

on the decentralization of the prison system, of the correction system, as quickly

as possible. But again with that warning, a lot of track should be laid with

the public first; a lot of information should be given to the public and a lot

of information, a lot of feedback, should be sought from the public before we

go ahead in this venture. The second thing I wanted to bring up...and I was

really waiting till the fire marshal's vote, vote 29, but I al

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30p 04s 740314p
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30p 04s 740314p
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fd9907942f5eb40effcafff417488f6121f8fff6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, March 14, 1974 — Afternoon Sitting (30th Parliament, 4th Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1974

CONTENTS

RNABC.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES INTERIM

RENT STABILIZATION ACT

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

MUNICIPALITY COMPLAINTS ON

HIGH AUTO INSURANCE RATES

INCOME TAX REBATE LOANS

"SCABBING" AMONG HERRING FISHERMEN

BOXCAR SHORTAGE, THE CURRENT SITUATION

discussion.

REDUCTION OF STUMPAGE

RATES TO FOREST INDUSTRY

FUTURE PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL

TAXES BY ICBC CLAIMS CENTRES

BOYCOTT FOR TURKISH PRODUCE

FREEZING PROPERTY TAX INCREASES

NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN

B.C. HOSPITALS ASSOCIATION

AND RNABC

INSURANCE COST

FOR GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

IMPORT QUOTAS AND PRICE

RISES OF BEEF CATTLE

STATEMENTS ON TOURISM

BY THE MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS

MEETING ON LAND CLAIMS

WITH B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

section 64(

Summary

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: 1974.

facts.

Document details