[ Page 795 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The Honourable L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, being amendments to Bill (No. 107) intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

Bill (No. 4) intituled An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act was committed, reported complete without amendment.

On the motion for third reading of Bill 4, the House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Messieurs

NAYS — 17

Messieurs

Bill 4 read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 38) intituled Mortgage Brokers Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 49) intituled An Act to Amend the Department of Highways Act was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Bill (No. 62) intituled An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 70) intituled An Act to Amend the Police and Prisons Regulation Act.

Bill (No. 71) intituled An Act to Amend the Controlled Access Highways Act.

Bill (No. 76) intituled An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act.

Bill (No. 77) intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act.

Bill (No. 85) intituled An Act to Amend the Sale of Goods Act.

Bill (No. 89) intituled An Act to Amend the Summary Convictions Act.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Second reading of Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 86, Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited (Non-personal Liability) Mineral Claims Act. The Honourable the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reinstate certain Crown-granted mineral claims that have been forfeited to the Crown and to revest ownership to the claims in the former shareholders. Along with this I might say, at this time, that it was through no fault on the part of the shareholders that the claims were forfeited. The books of the company were seized at the orders of the Securities Commission by the RCMP and the shareholders were not aware, although the tax notices went to the registered company office, that the taxes were not paid by the officers who were in a position to do this or who should have been taking care of the taxes. When this became known, the lands had lapsed in taxation and were forfeited to the Crown.

Now, since that time, one of the principals has passed away in New York. The son of the principal is not connected with these claims in any way, or these mineral claims and has no connection. Since that time, the Attorney-General's Department has dropped the charges against the principal and this bill would give security to the shareholders in relation to their mineral claims. While I am aware, although it is not stated in this bill, I am aware that the annual general meeting has not been held. This bill will not be proclaimed until the conditions that are outlined in it have been met, along with the annual general meeting, which must be held before we will consider it. The Companies office, along with my department, are in contact to ascertain this point. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitiam): Mr. Speaker, I have information that contradicts what the Minister has just told this House. The principal, as I know it, is George S. Groves and, according to the last report filed on the company, under the Companies Act, in this Province… The last report was filed in 1965 and, according to your records, the principal is George S. Groves, who was under charge, as I understand it, for attempting to bleed this particular company. He's in gaol. The father is dead. Is George S. Groves dead — the 32-year-old? Senior is dead but he is not a principal in the company. I think that that's a very sloppy presentation to bring to this House on a very touchy matter.

[ Page 796 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough detail.

MR. BARRETT: To come into the House and make a presentation as briefly as the Minister has, when the father of Mr. Groves has died… I think I have some experience in dealing with the Groves people. After all, it was my surveillance on the Groves' involvement with Cypress Bowl that had the Government change its policy on that particular matter. Then, for the Minister to come into the House and say that 32-year-old George S. Groves is dead, when it was the father who died and the father was never a principal in this company. Your own records, Mr. Minister, if you take the trouble to check with your own Companies Registrar, you will find that it's George S. Groves of Armonk, New York, USA, whose father passed away.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the Attorney-General should have a better memory than the Minister of Mines has, because on June 6, 1970, an extradition hearing was launched against Mr. Groves, due to his behaviour, in this particular instance, with this particular mine. "A Federal judge has set a tentative date of June 16 for a hearing on Canada's attempt to extradite a 32-year-old U.S. citizen on a Vancouver arrest warrant. George S. Groves Jr., formerly of Armonk and Mount Kisco, New York, surrendered here last Tuesday. Richard Kuh, a New York lawyer, representing British Columbia and Canada, told Judge Inzer Wayatt Friday that the Vancouver warrant accused Groves and his father, now living in Florida, of buying a controlling interest in two corporations, Sunshine Comstock Mines Limited and Maralgo Mines Limited. Kuh said, speaking on behalf of the Government of British Columbia, that the two men 'looted, in effect, the treasury of the company, took all the securities, sold them and came back to this country."'

If you had a lawyer on the case, and you've got the records in your office, how can the Minister come in this House and say that the principal, by the name of Groves, is dead. His father is dead. The young Groves did waive extradition… Sunshine Comstock Mines, that's the mine we're talking about, that's the bill that we're dealing with, and there is his name on the records provided by your own Government department. When the extradition opened, there was a detailed story in the Victoria Daily Colonist, March, 1970. Then we had a report from the Sun of…

I'd like to know how much the Attorney-General's Department paid Mr. Kuh for pursuing this matter in New York. How much did it cost the Attorney-General's Department to…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, maybe, the Attorney-General will give us the answer. The matter of Mr. Groves' participation in this particular matter was a subject of much gossip in the Vancouver area. On November 27, 1969, Alan Fotheringharn stated the following in his daily column. "The Provincial Government, though it seems to be unaware of it, has a further interest in the affairs of the Groves family. Still on the books is an investigation ordered some time ago by the Attorney-General's Department and the Superintendent of Brokers into the activities on the Vancouver Stock Exchange of Sunshine Comstock Mines. Sunshine Comstock was suspended from trading in 1966, after Vancouver Stock Exchange President Jack Van Luven said Sunshine had filed a proposal for development that was not acceptable to the Vancouver Stock Exchange directors and then persisted in disregarding the ruling."

The Minister never told the House any of this background. What is the state of their proposals, Mr. Minister? Who are the principals now, who have alternate proposals that weren't acceptable to Mr. Van Luven? I don't think you really know enough about this. You don't know the details obviously.

Sunshine Comstock was a new company formed only four months earlier, when control of Sunshine Lardeau Mines was bought by International Securities Limited, New York. The president of Sunshine Comstock, George S. Groves, still alive and breathing, wrote to the stockholders from a letterhead, Box 99, Armonk, New York, stating that their new mining property at Virginia City, 23 miles from Reno, is worth a considerable fortune " …and we believe the possibilities are fabulous." They certainly were — for young Mr. Groves — because they moved the Attorney-General of this Province to hire a lawyer to pursue Mr. Groves and the lawyer's statement was that, in effect, Mr. Groves had looted the company (interruption). Mr. Kuh, K…U…H, a New York lawyer. No, he's a New York City city-slicker lawyer. "The previous ownership of the property was one of the first companies listed on the San Francisco Mining Exchange in 1862. It had not been listed on a stock exchange for 15 years. B.C. Investigators are still seeking to talk to George S. Groves." Senior is the brother of Wallace Groves, the man who wrote that forgotten letter to Lands Minister Ray Williston about his company taking over Cypress Bowl (interruption). Now, it was George S. Groves, Sr. who died, and he is the brother of Wallace Groves, who is involved in the Grand Bahama's port authority, who lost $1 1/2 million to the promoters of the Cypress Bowl development through Alpine Outdoor States Ltd., and that may be the subject of another court case.

MR. SPEAKER: It may not, however, be a continued subject of this debate.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct, Mr. Speaker. I'll go back to this gossip column where it says that the man was gaoled for attempted fraud and stock manipulation — the man who was involved in paying $1 million to the Bahama's Cabinet Minister, Sir Stafford Sands. But, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that refers to the uncle of the George S. Groves, who is named in that. Now, Mr. Groves did come back. Mr. Groves waived extradition and he did come back. He came back to Burnaby on July 7, last year. "A U.S. citizen waived extradition," and I quote from the Vancouver Sun. "A U.S. citizen waived extradition from the U.S. and voluntarily surrendered on charges of stealing securities valued at $49,000 from two B.C. mines. George S. Groves, 32," the one who is not dead and who is a director of this mine, "was remanded on bail of $20,000 when he appeared in court here June 23. Preliminary hearing was set for July 16." Certainly, the Attorney-General should tell us, during the second reading of this bill, how his department flubbed this whole case. The case is still there. Is he still in gaol or is he out on bail? (Interruption.) He's on bail. Is he in Canada or in the States?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This cross-questioning is quite irregular.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Speaker, it's quite irregular and I'm sorry that it took place, but it was necessitated because the man is still being charged although

[ Page 797 ]

he is dead, according to the Minister of Mines. Senior died and Senior was never a principal in this company. The Minister of Mines attempted to tell this House…(interruption)….he was not a principal…(interruption). A director in this company…(interruption). You left the impression that the director had died and that George S. Groves, 32, was still alive and still awaiting the outcome of a court case in British Columbia. You left the impression that the charges have been dropped…well, he was never charged. Senior was never charged. He was never charged, so don't…(interruption) when you spoke in this House…(interruption). He's cross examining me now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite right.

MR. BARRETT: You can't do that, either. I expect the Minister to know a bit more about it. Anyway, let me continue, Mr. Speaker.

"Groves originally surrendered in New York where extradition proceedings were started. At the New York hearing, lawyer Richard Kuh, representing B.C. and Canada, alleged Groves and his father bought a controlling interest." That was the allegation, but it was the boy who was on the books looted, in effect, the treasury of the companies. RCMP here said that the father was originally charged but the charges would not be proceeded with, due to his health, but the charges against the son would proceed," …because he was really the director (interruption). Now, look…no, no, no.

The Attorney-General has indicated to this House that young Groves is out on $20,000 bail. Well, took, I only go by what the Attorney-General… Don't cross examine me on a three-way deal. We'll have to rely on what the Attorney-General says. We now get a statement, that the Attorney-General has given this House, that George S. Groves, Jr. Is still on charge, he's out on bail for the $20,000. I'd like to know when his case is going to be heard?

Mr. Speaker, without the kind of information that is truly necessary on this bill, I would suggest that the Minister of Mines, put this bill into committee, put it into the Bills Committee. Let's get more information on it because the case is still pending. I move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 94, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 94, An Act to Amend the Health Act. The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver-South): Mr. Speaker, the number of provisions in this act reflect changing times, reflect changes in travel patterns. I would refer you first, Mr. Speaker, to those portions of the act which deal with the question of communicable diseases. Heretofore, the Department of Health had rather wider powers in respect of the treatment of persons suffering from tuberculosis. Over the years, these provisions have proved very useful in administering the best form of treatment to persons suffering from TB. I've been advised and have accepted the advice that the same kind of powers to treat ought to be extended to persons who evidence infection of things such as typhoid fever, smallpox, leprosy and any other contagious or infectious disease, designated by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The reason for this is, as I have indicated a little bit earlier, that we are, more and more, finding ourselves hosts to people who are coming in in large groups, usually by aeroplane, from the Orient and so on. In some instances, we've had as many as 500 to 700 people landing in Vancouver under circumstances which don't always permit us to examine these persons in the way that might be desirable. We feel that it is very useful that there should be a follow-up in detection of diseases where persons are coming into the Province in these circumstances.

The next point of principle involves the conferring upon the Government, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the power to make regulations which would permit the imposition of levies and the recovery of fees and so on charged for inspections associated with environmental health standards. The present law permits the collection of fines and the imposition of levies and so on, under the pollution control legislation. Similar legislation also appears in connection with the regulation of subdivisions. This is intended to supplement those powers, the principle being that the person that causes pollution ought to be responsible for the inspection of same.

The next point relates to an extension of the powers of the Department of Health to deal with regulations which relate to some new forms of living activity — public and commercially operated swimming pools, campsites and mobile homes and so on, and it merely reflects the changing life patterns in this Province.

Finally, two other matters — one, which confers upon the Minister the power to designate a medical health officer from one jurisdiction to another, one health unit to another and this usually arises as a practical matter, where a medical health officer is absent, or sick, or for some other reason and it's necessary to send one of his colleagues in to deal with health matters in a particular health unit. Finally, there are permissive provisions here which would facilitate the transfer of responsibilities from a union board of health over to a regional district. I might describe this as another step in the introduction and the extension of the activities of regional districts. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 94 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 97, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 97, Hospital Corporations Act. The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

MR. LOFFMARK: Most of the hospitals in the Province, which are the beneficiaries of our public financing system, are organized as societies and their by-laws and constitutions are usually created and amended by common consent of the members of the society and the Department of Hospital Insurance Service. There are some notable exceptions in the Province and they relate, in the main, to the three hospitals which are referred to in this bill — the Royal Columbian Hospital, the Royal Inland Hospital and the Vancouver General.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is put the hospital authorities, in each case, in a position where they can discuss

[ Page 798 ]

with the Department of Hospital Insurance Service amendments to their acts and amendments to their constitutions which would bring them in line with those of other hospitals in the Province. This legislation is permissive. It does nothing more than allow each of these three corporations to make the amendments that are necessary to up-date their constitutions. In the case of the Royal Columbian Hospital, its constitution dates back to the early days of this century. I think the same can be said for the Royal Inland Hospital. The Vancouver General is of more recent vintage. Now, the bellwether of these three is the Vancouver General constitution. Most of the discussions in respect to changes in their constitutions have been developed with the Vancouver General Hospital and the two other hospital acts would be brought in line almost verbatim with the Vancouver General Hospital's proposed constitutional changes. Thereafter, changes in their constitutions will take place in manner the same as other hospitals across the Province. I move second reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 97 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 78, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 7 8, Mobile Home Park Fee Act. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this bill does a number of things. One, it provides for a schedule of fees payable by the owner of a park which is for rent. The second thing, which it does, is to try and redress what was happening with respect to the assessment within trailer parks, wherein it was the case where assessors were assessing double wide for full taxation rates and right alongside of it was approximately the same square footage, another single wide, which would not be taxed under either the Public Schools Act, Taxation Act, the Vancouver Charter or the Municipal Act.

The only other thing I would like to say about this bill is, it seems to me, that, apart from the fact that there is a schedule of fees connected in principle to this bill, it seems to me, both municipalities and regional districts should do a far better job than they do, in terms of regulating rental parks, in the first instance.

This year, I've been around the Province quite a bit. I can only describe some rental parks as a mess. It seems to me that, quite apart from the health aspects of the way they are laid out, the almost incredible overcrowding that I noticed in several, is certainly something that municipalities and regional districts should do something about. The second thing I would like to observe is, quite apart from the trailer parks which are rental parks, it seems to me, that a pretty good case could be made for municipalities to look over their planning layout and their subdivision layout and probably provide for a specific kind of subdivision which would permit a person to move his trailer onto his own individually owned lot. There are instances where, I think, a municipality might be able to move in that direction. This bill will come in by proclamation. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a representative of a riding which has been toiling with mobile homes for some while, I felt that I shouldn't let this bill go past without a couple of words. I might try and speak to the principle of the bill. If I do, it will be the first speech on this bill that deals with the principle.

I want to agree with the Minister that there is an absence of regulations about the whole question of mobile homes. There is an absence of the specific kinds of subdivisions that he mentions, I agree with that. But what's more important is an absence of leadership, Mr. Speaker, which is not contained in this bill. Therefore, I am not sure whether I can speak about it in length or not.

The absence of leadership has been noted by no less than the Minister himself. And thereby hangs a tale, I suppose. But, in his remarks, the Minister pointed out that, on his trips around the Province, he sees these courts laid out in bad fashion, higgledy-piggledy, cheek by jowl. Yet, the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as witnessed by the schedule, is different from the bill enabling legislation that is currently being adopted by the municipalities, where the table of fees is based on the size of the unit. Now, we see the schedule based on the size of the land that the unit occupies and, in fact, will increase the area occupied by a mobile home — 1,000 sq. ft. or m ore is $8 per month, 5 00 sq. ft., lie ss than a 1,000 sq. ft. Is $5 dollars per month (interruption). In that case, the legislation, again, is badly drafted.

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem. We get the kind of speech introducing the bill which shows, to a certain extent, that the Minister hasn't read it. I will have to come to that on committee. I can read as well as the next man, I hope, and if it says, "…area occupied by mobile home…" However, we'll take the point up in committee, unless he wants to take it up in answer. That is different from that which is operating now, where we are taxing the mobile home by size of the home itself and that does not say and is not repeated in the legislation…

The next point, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole bill before us deals with the question of fees and another bill that came before the House deals with the question of tolls. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of this bill is to accommodate the semantic language, likened — I can't use the word "misleading" — but certainly it's an avoidance reaction by the Minister to use the word "tax." Frankly, until this important segment and growing segment of our society qualifies on equal ground to all the members of society, that is, to get the home-owner grant on their property, then, we have got not only second-class citizens but we've got third-class citizens, as far as mobile home parks are concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I have only one point to make in regards to this bill and that is that the people who own mobile homes own a home; therefore, they are entitled to a home-owner grant. I think even more so than many other types of home-owners because, very often, these are people who have to go and claw out some development from the forests of British Columbia or some other remote area of the Province. These

[ Page 799 ]

are the people who are taming the frontier, bringing the revenue into Government, trying to become a little more comfortable under the harsh conditions that always go with these frontier developments. Yet, we are too cheap to pay them a home-owner grant. It's a form of discrimination, another form of discrimination and, as always, it's directed against people who are in a minority and are really too weak to become a powerful voting block. It's a denial of justice, Mr. Speaker, to go about it this way.

It may be that it's very fair to collect fees from people who have mobile homes, as a means of compensating those who have to provide services. I certainly understand the feelings of the municipalities and the school boards that are involved because there has to be a way in which people who utilize these services help to cover their cost. But, surely, that's what the home-owner grant is all about. It seems to be most unfair to swat these people between the eyes in order to cover up for what's been an unfair impost on cities and municipalities and school boards in the past. I just wish that we could have a little bit of elemental fairness from the Government, handling problems like these. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like the Government to consider this for a day or two. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion not agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: Adjournment has been refused. The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a few words about mobile homes, mobile home parks, mobile home park fees, and the situation in which we find ourselves in the Province of British Columbia. A survey, last year, in Nanaimo, showed that of 10,000 school children, 60 of them came from mobile homes. Ten thousand school children in the whole district and only 60 children came from mobile homes out of 10,000 in the district.

An examination of mobile homes generally shows that they are occupied either by young couples, just starting out in life, or retired couples who didn't want the work of maintaining the regular home which they had occupied during the years when they were raising their family.

I have spoken earlier on the need for giving the home-owner grant to people who own mobile homes. There has been a problem, especially in the lower mainland and in the built-up areas, with mobile homes because of the failure of the Government to give the municipalities the authority and the power to tax mobile homes at their value. The Government has consistently refused to pass the legislation that would allow for the taxing of mobile homes as any other home is taxed. There is a very good reason why the Government doesn't want to do that because once they give the municipalities the authority to tax the mobile home in the same way as any other home, then, it's entitled to the home-owner grant. When you examine the values of the mobile homes, and the home-owner grant at $170, or whatever it happened to be in the past, you would see that, in actual fact, that home-owner grant would be a simple transfer payment from the Provincial Treasury right to the municipality because it's unlikely that the assessment and the taxes on a mobile home, the average mobile home, would exceed the amount of the home-owner grant. That's basically why the Government has consistently refused to give the municipalities this taxing right. It's because the Government has refused to give the municipalities this taxing right that the municipalities in the lower mainland and the lower end of Vancouver Island, and developing elsewhere, too, are reluctant to have mobile home sites within the municipality. That's why we have inadequate and unsatisfactory mobile home sites in the Province of British Columbia. There was an edition of the Professional Builder, put out about a year or so ago, devoted almost entirely to mobile home sites and the way they are being handled where there is a more reasonable approach to them. We find that these mobile home sites are complete units, with sidewalks, street lights, roadways, swimming pools, recreation centres, tree-lined streets, and an admirable way in which to live. But we will never get it until we recognize them as homes, until we treat them in the same way as other homes and we require much more legislation than this to correct the problems that we are having with the mobile home sites in the Province of British Columbia. Until the municipalities have this right, then, they will be reluctant to have the kind of mobile home sites that they should have. I agree with the Minister that, in many cases, they are cheek by jowl, they are lined up like army barracks and it is a most unsatisfactory way in which to have people living. Until they are recognized for taxable purposes in the normal way, then, you'll continue to have that. We look at the schedule to the bill and you can argue all you please about the meaning of the words "area occupied by a mobile home" and they are being assessed on that basis… If the Minister says that's not true, that they are not being assessed on the size of the mobile home but on the area that the mobile home is set into, then, because of the increase in costs or no matter which way you do it, you're trapped on it. Because of the increased cost in the larger area occupied by the mobile home, then, you will try and get more and more into a smaller space. Now, it's either that the fee is based on the actual area, outside dimension of the mobile home, or it's in the area allotted to each mobile home. One or the other. If it's the one, then, it's according to the size of the trailer or mobile home. If it's the other, the tendency will be to get more and more of them into a smaller space, in order to get more return from the space available.

We talk about utilization of land. The average acre of land in the Province produces home sites for four homes out of an acre of land. In properly laid-out mobile homes sites, and this is a tree-lined one, with recreation centres and swimming pools, you get seven of them to an acre of land (interruption). No, no. I'm saying this is better use of land because you are getting seven adequate home sites with the recreational facilities and all the rest of it. It works out to seven of these home sites to an acre of land and that's allowing for all of the streets and the swimming pools and recreation centres and the washrooms and all the rest of it. It would make a much better use of land and the ones that I have seen developed in this way…as I say, this article in the Professional Builder indicates very clearly that, instead of trying to push them to one side, we should be enacting legislation recognizing facts as they are and that more and more people are going to go to mobile home sites and mobile homes because of the initial cost and because of the cost commitment. We should see that they are developed in a rational way (interruption). That's right. Three or four of them never move. But even though they do move, generally, they move because they are following their jobs and they stay there as long as the job lasts. In essence, it's a form of discrimination.

[ Page 800 ]

I would ask the Minister to re-examine this legislation because it has been a festering sore, the whole matter of mobile home sites, has been a festering sore for too long and this legislation will not solve this growing problem. I suggest, Mr. Minister, that it says the purpose of this bill is to enact a Mobile Home Fee Act and it's self-explanatory… Right off the bat, it's not self-explanatory because we are in an argument as to the meaning of the words, "area occupied by the mobile home." I suggest you look at facts as they are and that you bring in proper, adequate legislation, recognizing the land use involved, encouraging the municipalities to allow for the development of proper mobile home sites. That won't happen until you recognize them as homes and treat them exactly the same way as other homes, allowing the municipalities to tax them and allowing them to get the full benefit of the home-owner grant.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): This has been a rather knotty problem, spelt with a k, for a long while and the attempts of Government, in many ways, to solve it and assist the municipalities in coming to grips with it, too, have caused several attempts at it. I agree with some of the previous speakers. I have mentioned before that I think that the attitude of many of us has been one of exaggeration, that the problem is not one for school tax purposes, as we have made out the case for. I know that, in the real estate business, many of the people who have retired found that their own homes were more than they could cope with. They came here from other Provinces to retire and found that there is more satisfaction in living in a mobile home. It met their needs and is better than buying a piece of property and building, or buying an existing home. It wasn't an escape from taxation, in any sense. They wished to bear their own fair share, but there was no manner in which the legislation really permitted this effectively.

We, in fact, have driven this kind of housing almost underground and made it something that was to be despised or ridiculed and really accepted as inferior housing when, in many cases, the accommodation was superior to what I could take you to by way of old, old housing that people are living in today.

I think we should have been more in step with the zoning people in our municipalities and brought this type of habitation up to a standard that would have been acceptable and not created a second-class impression about it. It's mostly an impression. I've heard most people, who go through a new mobile home, ooh and aah over it far more than they do many of the contemporary homes that are built for low-cost housing, for instance. The compactness of that home, the unit… I think that we could well look at the title, to have done something about that, and call it modular housing or habitation. As long as we are going to be struggling over a term that is not really factual — three out of four never move — we're classifying people in an area and creating the stigma that shouldn't exist around this type of housing. It's superior housing to many of the old homes that we now have on the market — where senior citizens, moving into a place that has a small lot, and I speak of this knowingly because many of the homes that were built suitable for senior citizens were built under zoning that allowed 400 to 700 square ft. In some areas, and those houses are not allowed to be built any more, unless it's in a stacked housing. Then, we come to the fact of the $170 home-owner grant…and we're looking at something that is not consistent here. We are passing legislation that allows or accepts the principle that housing that's stacked in nowhere, on top one on the other, qualifies for the home-owner grant. Yet, if you have it on a lot and because its a compact unit, it doesn't qualify. There's just no reasonable assurance that this is good legislation in that aspect.

I think we've got to recognize that this type of housing is with us to stay. People want it and, at a time when we are trying to cut back on the cost of housing, we are intensifying the present existing pressure on high-priced housing. This doesn't do anything for rent control. If you want good rent control, let's have a surplus of housing and you've got the best rent control in the country. Many people would be better served in this type of housing, modular housing, than in any other way that I know of. They like the unit that is taken care of, on the basis of one management type, almost town housing. They like this. The roads and everything else are under the auspices and expense of the operator. Municipalities here get off free of expense and care of the areas. The recreational facilities are at the cost of the operator and so on. I think the municipalities have been derelict and I appreciate the Minister's remarks in saying that the municipalities should get on with comprehensive planning and working in detail and working with them. I'm sure there are many sites that would be acceptable in a municipality that would not intrude, infringe, or detract or deteriorate from existing housing, but would add to and complement. After all, the people who live in them are British Columbia citizens, most of the time, and we should be citizen-minded and oriented. I, for one, find this bill an attempt, only, to come to grips with the taxation problem, but not to any grips with the problem of living and housing. This, I feel, is trying to assess a problem on a very fractional basis, a very fractional basis, that really I doubt will work. I find it most difficult to support it in principle. It's something that I think should be given a great deal further thought in respect to it's being leading legislation. It doesn't really lead us very far.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I'd better give you the right title or I'm liable to get into difficulties with you.

This question of mobile homes, year after year, has been a problem. I don't think that the municipalities have been derelict so much as the department has been derelict. They've been trying to come to grips. They've promised each year and they have made feeble attempts to change the Municipal Act and one thing and another to deal with mobile homes. But, in each case, they have come up with a sterile act that has no value to it as far as the mobile home-owner comes into the picture.

Now, I understand the reason you don't want to tax these homes or assess them for taxes is that many of them are on leased land. These people pay up to $40 and $50 a month and $65 for a piece of ground to put this mobile home on. This is just like taxes — that's 12 times 7, we'll say, $840, they pay right there for nothing, just for the right of the land. They axe not recognized on the assessment rolls for their trailers and given a home-owner grant.

The Government can lease a piece of land to somebody to build a summer home on and they will assess them and tax them. The government does — on leased land and I don't see

[ Page 801 ]

why that same rule shouldn't prevail when it comes to mobile homes. You should be able to assess them the same as you assess a summer home on land that's leased by the Government. Many of these homes are worth $12, $14, or $15 thousand. They pay $700 or $800 for the right to have it on the lot. You charge them a set amount to be living in that home…with occupancy tax or with some other tax that you set up…alongside of them is another trailer that pays the same tax and probably is worth only $1,000 or $2,000. Alongside of that is an older home that's nowhere near the home that the trailer is and they get away with one dollar taxes a year. With their home-owner grant, all they pay is a dollar taxes. There is no justice on this question at all. I think that these people should get credit for living in a home. They are paying practically as much for that home as they would if it were sitting on a lot. If the Government feels that this is a knotty problem and difficult to deal with, I don't see why they didn't turn this question over to the Municipal Committee to come up with some kind of a solution. We dealt with indefeasible titles for a block of air up there to people. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to deal with a problem that's on the ground. You have given to these, one on top of the other. You are giving home-owner grants to people who own an apartment, way up in a building. Yet, you are not going to give a home-owner grant to people who own a trailer. You can set the amount for the trailer — but these big trailers, for all intents and purposes, they are permanent homes. It's only in cases where people have got to move that, sometimes, they move those homes. But, for all intents and purposes, they are just as permanent as a summer home that's built or a trailer that's put on a leased lot at a lake. You charge them taxes on those things without any question. Yet, you deny the municipality the right to tax the trailers.

I think that the people who own trailers, who are living in mobile homes, would be glad to get away from the criticism that's heaped upon them about not paying for education of their children and not paying for fire protection and for not paying for some of these things. I think, indirectly, they pay a lot, when they pay anywhere up to $70 for the right to use a lot. They are paying, indirectly, taxes there. But they are criticized just the same. The only way we will get away from this criticism, and the mobile home-owner would be glad to get away from it, is by treating them the same as everyone else and treating the mobile home as a home and taxing it, accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I have had quite a bit of correspondence from residents and owners of these mobile homes. They feel they are being discriminated against. Some of the organized areas in the Yale-Lillooet riding have already passed by-laws within their communities to have their special municipal tax on mobile homes. This is going to make it possible for people with a mobile home living anywhere in the Province, organized or unorganized….and to me, Mr. Speaker, this is very definitely class legislation. Here, the Minister of Lands is singling out the working people who go out into the hills and help build the highways, help build the dams, build the tunnels and help build the Province, the ones who are prepared to move out of the great cities and live a more rural life. We are placing many special taxes upon them and, also, the miners. The people living in mobile homes already pay a 5 per cent sales tax when they purchase that home and that tax is not just on the material, Mr. Speaker, the tax is also on the labour that went into assembling that material. The tax is also on the manufacturer's or builder's profit and the tax is also on the salesman's commission. So that the people who are forced to live in these mobile homes are being taxed most unfairly. These people do not receive the home acquisition grant nor the home-owner grant. I think, in all fairness, they should receive both, where they own their land. I think we should work out an arrangement that, if we are going to allow them to be taxed by these special taxes, they should get the home-owner grant regardless. If they are paying all the taxes and additional taxes to other people, these men and their families who go out into the unorganized areas of this Province to work in the mines, to work in the woods, to dig the tunnels, to build the dams, I think they should be given equality with all other citizens and home-owners of this Province. But, instead, Mr. Speaker, we penalize these people and we do it by passing class legislation and creating a caste system in this Province. That is what this legislation is. I don't think it is good legislation for this Province. So, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Finance, to consider extending and expanding the home acquisition grant and the home-owner grant to these people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: I think the question here is applying a different standard to one kind of home-owner as compared to that of another, and the principle of this bill does discriminate between these two kinds of home-owners in the Province of British Columbia. A very large proportion, now surprisingly large, of the homes that are being built each year are what are called mobile homes. It is an industry, so far as the landlords are concerned, who rent the space, provide the improvements to which the mobile home is tied, such as the sewage connection, water and light. Rent is paid, rather excessive rent, is paid by the tenant to the landlord. Now, the Government is seeking to tax, by this bill, that tenant and is doing it on a basis that does not take into account the value of the particular home, as is true with the other kind of home-owner. The other kind of home is carefully assessed, the value of the improvements are calculated, supposedly, on a fair basis, throughout the Province, but not so in the case of this home-owner, where, if he pays $2,000 for a mobile home or pays $20,000 it would make no difference, he is taxed exactly the same amount — not according to his ability to pay but in accordance with the square footage of that mobile home.

There is another very distinct discrimination and that is, if a home-owner, who is being taxed on his home property by the municipality, fails to pay his taxes, then, of course, he's in default on his taxes. After two years, there is a tax sale and he can recover his land by paying up the arrears of taxes — but not so for the mobile home-owner. He can be charged under the proposal, here, in Criminal Court and treated like a criminal, when a home-owner who has land is merely subject to the default provisions of the Municipal Act. Now, why this distinction between one home-owner and the other? Why treat one like a criminal…because he may be out of work, he may be one of the workers who has been displaced on a job in the Peace River and…I say, under the bill…(interruption). You know, the Minister is out of order. You

[ Page 802 ]

shouldn't talk about particular sections but there's clear provision in here for the Lieutenant-Governor to make regulations, and with the force of law, in regards to penalties and so on (interruption).

Oh, I read the bill and I read what it said in the sections to which the Honourable the Minister refers. That's section 5 — it deals with mobile park operators. Well, don't try to pretend that other people can't read. We often read these better than the Ministers. I'll tell you this, for the Minister's information, that, under the previous legislation that this is going to replace, the municipalities were charging and convicting and fining through the magistrates, in Criminal Court, the mobile home-owners who had failed to pay their fees (interruption). Surrey?… No, the owners, and I know this personally by seeing one in the Supreme Court. They charged and convicted the owners of the mobile homes, not the operators. That's under the legislation that you are replacing. So, what are you going to do? Are you going to give it an opening in section 9 for dragging these people into Court and fining them from $25 to $200, the same as you are going to do to the operators? How do we know this? It says, "…the force of law," in section 9. The municipalities took it that they had that power. Are you saying that the Courts that dealt with this were ultra vires — had no right to do this? There is a number of people who are going to write you letters about the fines they had to pay in police courts, in the Provincial Court in Surrey and other places. In Coquitlam, someone is charged and convicted and you say the law, as it was didn't put that kind of penalty on one kind of home-owner. It did. Under the Municipal Act, if you have a by-law, and you gave the power to them to make a by-law, if they are in breach of the by-law, then, they can be fined like anyone else who is in breach of the by-law. So…that's your department. You are not looking after the municipal by-laws properly. You don't know what they are doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Members please address the Chair?

MR. DOWDING: Yes, the Minister should address the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I point out that these are problems that there should be clear guarantees on, that the discrimination against the mobile home-owners will be eliminated. I put this to the Minister. If you want a way to tax these people, Why don't you tax the landlord, the way you do every other landlord who has an apartment? He shows an annual record to the assessor of the percentage of occupancy for the year and the trailer, then, stands as an improvement, on the change in definition, to the land. You work it out fairly and equitably so that he pays it through his rent, like every other tenant does. Why has this kind of class legislation and this particular discrimination that you are proposing set up on a flat fee basis on the area of the home rather than on the value of the home? It's totally ridiculous. It's not fair taxation. No wonder they are so upset about this Government and the way you people tax them. You don't have the decency to call it a tax, you call it a fee. Ridiculous. I hope that the Minister will do something about these sections to give these people a decent break.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 78 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 98, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 98, An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the principal amendments in this bill deal with three matters, one, of discipline, one, of credentials, and the third relating to the insurance programme the Law Society conducts for the benefit of its members.

On the disciplinary area, the main change in the bill will be to have disciplinary matters dealt with by a committee of the Benchers of the Law Society, rather than the necessity of having the full number of Benchers sitting throughout as the members of the discipline committee. We also are proposing extensive amendments in regards to the procedures to be followed when matters of discipline arise. Under these new amendments, a discipline committee may be authorized by the Benchers to take certain limited action with respect to the complaint, but this would be limited to dismissing the citation determining whether a former member of the society has been guilty of conduct or misconduct, giving rise to the exercise of disciplinary powers, or determining whether a student or articled clerk has contravened the rules. Where a person is found guilty of anything, which may be inquired into under the act, the Benchers, as a whole, may then act by resolution. One of the more important amendments of the bill is to provide greater flexibility, in terms of rather than just giving a simple reprimand to also impose a fine, a penalty, not exceeding $1,000, which is a new principle. One of the major provisions of the bill, relating to the credentials, is the change from British subject to Canadian citizen. It's virtually a universal requirement that a lawyer be a national of the country in which he practises. I think, probably, the only exception to that ride has been in the case of a number of countries where it has been British subjects rather than citizenship in their own country. But, normally…. In the United States, for example, you have to be an American citizen to practise before the Courts because, there as here. a lawyer does have responsibilities which relate to administration of justice and that sort of thing, which generally requires citizenship in that country. With the Commonwealth, now, the change has been considerable over the years. We have as well a number of Commonwealth countries, now, that are republic, that do not have any allegiance to the Queen or anything of that nature. Some of the members of the Commonwealth countries are requiring Canadian citizenship…not Canadian citizenship but the citizenship of their own country as a requirement for the Bar. The governing bodies of the legal profession in Canada have given this question extensive study during the past two years and they have agreed, Nationally, that it would be desirable in each Province to make this change to Canadian citizenship. Hence, that provision is found in the bill.

There are also some amendments having to do with insurance funds, that will enable the cost of the negligence insurance scheme to be paid out of the insurance fund rather than against the general revenue of the law society. These amendments have come forward at the request of the Benchers of the law society of British Columbia. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 803 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it appears that, in concert with the Attorney-General and the Government, the lawyers have taken some steps to see that their affairs are a little better regulated insofar as offending members are concerned. I'm sure that they were in concert with the department when this bill came into being.

There is one item in here that gives me a little bit of concern from the viewpoint of principle, particularly dealing with the concept of innocence until proven guilty in the context of a hearing. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General that he would perhaps take another look at the bill concerning this power of suspension of people without hearing. I think it might be a little more appropriate to have in here rather than a suspension, something along the line, shall we say, of the ability to freeze a trust account, much similar to the provisions that were before the House earlier today in the Mortgage Brokers Act, or perhaps grant the power to the Benchers to request that their inequity receiver be appointed very quickly. In situations, where this unfortunate trust account deficiency arises, sometimes it's very necessary to act exceptionally quickly and I don't know that suspension is the answer there.

Quite frankly, I think it's regrettable that this provision has to be in the bill — the suspensions without hearing. If you look particularly, Mr. Attorney-General, at section 18, that's what I'm talking about. If it is felt necessary to have this procedure in here, I would prefer the one that I have suggested because, quite frankly, you are violating two very cardinal principles of the common laws, as I said: a person is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty, and that proving of guilt has got to be by virtue of fair hearing. It is considered, obviously, by the Law Society and by the Department of the Attorney-General that perhaps this immediate suspension is a necessary fact but I say if it is felt, by both of these concerns, that it may be necessary that, perhaps, the freezing of an account would be a better procedure than the one suggested here. This could give rise to some mighty unfortunate circumstances where a person could be suspended and, then, as a result of a hearing, it could be found there was not any ground for a suspension. Then, the Law Society and the Benchers could face law suits, there.

One other item which is of concern to me in the bill, Mr. Attorney-General, is the fact that there is no reference made, in the bill before the House today as to where the fine goes. Is it to go to the Benchers or to consolidated revenue, or what happens to it? To the Crown? If it says so, I've missed it, but I don't see it in the act. If it's supposed to go to the Crown perhaps you should include that in the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): If I can join in the debate, being a lawyer but not having the flu, I don't know whether it's permissible for me to enter this cozy little debate. But I want to congratulate the Attorney-General on the flexibility that he has introduced into this bill in that a member of the Bar Association doesn't have to be either disbarred for a period of time or no action taken, in effect. Now, he can be fined. That's kind of a revolutionary, drastic step to give a private body — the right to fine up to $1,000. Yet, I think, it's a necessary power and a good power because there are cases where the lawyer should not be disbarred.

There would be vast disruption to his clients' business, among other things, and the offence may not be such as to warrant disbarment, even for a period of time, with that loss of reputation. A fine should be made but it is a pretty extensive power to be given to a private body.

I think, too, Mr. Attorney-General, that the time will come when there will have to be, on the benches, public representatives. I appreciate that the lawyers will say that we watch out for the client. We watch out for the public, but there is a large section of the public which doesn't believe that. They believe that lawyers stick together for their professional interest. Now, I don't know how an idea like that could come into anyone's head, but there it is (laughter). It's a widely held public notion and I think the public agrees, at this time, that there should be an advocate for the public, one or more public representatives sitting on the benches, a lay representative speaking up for the public. I think the lawyers will have to get used to that idea and so will the doctors and some other professions, as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to rise to belabour the point of the position of the lawyers. I was just saying to my very teamed friend that I, certainly at no time would ever want to attack or make fun of the lawyers. My father always said that the lawyers are a lot smarter than you think they are. He said, "Where do you think they get all the money we take off them?"

I'm rising, however, to commend the Attorney-General, today, on one phase of the bill that no one has really commented on. I think it marks rather a milestone in the history of the Province of British Columbia. To my knowledge, this is the first time, in a public act, that we have recognized the fact that the affairs of our Province should, in essence, be governed by Canadian citizens. The fact that we have moved to this step in this bill, for the first time, and have said that to be a lawyer and to act in the Courts of law in this land, you will have to be a Canadian citizen, I think, is a great step forward. I hope very sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that this is not meant to be any reflection, in any form, on other members of society. It is merely, I think, a significant sign of the times. It has been recognized Federally and it is time, I feel, of course, that we should be recognizing it Provincially. I hope that, from this bill, we will see that we have put up a road mark in a sign that can lead eventually into our Elections Act, into our Municipal Act, and into other acts, in which there is a differentiation as to British subject and Canadian citizen, etc. I do wish to commend the Attorney-General for this. I think this is the first Province in Canada to enact this portion of this particular act. I think it marks a very significant step and I certainly want to commend the Attorney-General for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that there is a real anomaly in here in that the lawyers are to be granted the fact that to practise one's profession, one must be a Canadian citizen which means, in effect, that people who may have qualifications in other countries may be delayed up to five years after entering

[ Page 804 ]

Canada before, in fact, they can practise law. I hope that this isn't a foot-in-the-door sort of thing, so that other professions may ask for this particular requirement. While we may be well off for lawyers, we are not well off for doctors, nor are we well off for many other learned people who come to our country and who make vital contributions in the time before they are allowed to become Canadian citizens. The great anomaly, of course, is the fact that, while those who have to administer the law, in fact, now, will have to be Canadian citizens, the anomaly is that those who make the laws, that is, the Members of this Legislature, do not have to be Canadian citizens…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come back to the principle of the bill?

MR. McDIARMID: The principle, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a far-reaching bill, in terms of restrictions to people with qualifications coming into the country, in that, I hope, it's not one that will be extended in other lines.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: I want to agree with the Member from Vancouver Centre who said that this is a first step. I think it's singularly unfortunate that, in an important thing like this, we haven't had an opportunity to debate this new step in terms of public policy on a much wider basis than the Legal Professions Act, notwithstanding the Minister's opening remarks about "…it is normally conceived to be correct and proper that a lawyer be a citizen of his country." That's all very well and good but — this is a significant departure, a significant change, in the laws of our country.

I want to state, right off the bat, that it is my view and the view of my family that, if you come to a country, you become a citizen just as soon as you can, just as soon as possible you want to take part in many of the endeavours of the country.

What we have here in this bill is a policy of discouragement rather than encouragement. It seems to me that we may be, and I agree with what the Member for Alberni says, we may indeed be working against the National Government, working against some of our best interests in this kind of legislation, which is preventative rather than, say, encouraging. Surely, what we should be doing is saying to people that you may go into any endeavour of life, private or public, in this Province but you'd better become a Canadian citizen as soon as you can. I'd much sooner see legislation which says that unless you become a Canadian citizen as soon as you can, you had better pack it up — if that's public policy and the Government is making that. But, to arbitrarily say to a young law graduate, and there are many of them in this Province who are making names for themselves, that you come over here from Kines College in Newcastle or any of the other famous law schools and you can do a year at UBC, because that's what you have to do, you have to take one year of Canadian law. Then, you have to, somehow, exist in the wilderness for two years — that's in the British system — or four years, if you happen to come from another country that doesn't happen to have reciprocity. In my view, it's wrong. It's wrong on both counts. There is no argument about that kind of waste of time. I would much prefer to see this kind of permissive legislation rather than this discouragement because of immigration. That's my viewpoint and I think the Government has got it the wrong way around. It's as simple as that.

Let me add another point which I think is absolutely nonacceptable. You say it's a matter of public policy, and the Member from Vancouver Centre gets up and makes his speech that I have heard him make before, and, then, hidden away in a clause you say, "…however the Benchers may decide." Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who are the Benchers to decide? In clause 11 and in clause 15 — let's follow this argument through. It says that a British subject may become I think the word is articled or admitted as a solicitor if he is enrolled as an articled clerk before July 1, 1971. In this case, the person shall cease to be a member of the society if he fails to file with the secretary proof of his Canadian citizenship within seven years of his call to the Bar. That's what I've been asking for. You've got it in one section, number 11. You've got it in section 15, exactly what I'm asking for. Then you add five words "….unless the Benchers otherwise direct." Well, who are the Benchers to decide whether a person should or should not? Here, we've taken a principle of the bill and we should say that they are Canadian citizens. Now, we say, if he's gone through the loophole before July 1 and he's done a good job, and so on, the Benchers may say, "He's no need to bother." Well, nonsense to that, Mr. Minister. It makes you wonder, now, what kind of a fellow…Let's take two lawyers who have gone this route. They are articled before July 1, 1971, and neither of them have filed proof of their Canadian citizenship seven years from that date. One the Benchers like and one the Benchers don't like. One has given the Benchers a bad time and one hasn't given the Benchers a bad time. One has made a name for himself in a certain kind of work and one hasn't made a name for himself in a certain kind of work.

What kind of rules are we getting on this thing? I suggest, Mr. Minister, that you should take sections 6 to 15 back, reword them in line and in full spirit of the clauses in section 11 and 15 — that you file proof of your certificate of Canadian citizenship. Then, we'll have an act we can all vote for with a clear conscience.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I was born in Vancouver and that makes me a Canadian but I'm also very proud to be a British subject. I think all of us here should be very proud to be part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This particular act does something which, I think, is unusual to any act or any bill that I have taken part in since I came to this Legislature, and that is that it requires a person, in becoming a lawyer, as a condition, he must be a Canadian citizen. When he becomes a Canadian citizen he also becomes a British subject. Yet, all the way through, section after section, in this act you see it discriminating against British subjects. This is something which I object to, which is something I don't think should be part of legislation of this Province and I don't know why on earth the Cabinet ever permitted a bill to come into the House like this in this condition. I just don't think it's a right thing to do for a part of the Parliament of the British Commonwealth to discriminate, particularly against British Subjects.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

[ Page 805 ]

MR. DOWDING: One word, Mr. Speaker, on the point. That is, after July, 1970, there will be no way I take it, from reading the amendment proposed to section 41 of the present act, for a British subject from Great Britain, for example, who has practiced the same kind of law as we do here…(interruption). Well, why should he have to wait five years, when he's fully trained? I can understand his having to be enrolled here as a student for one year to get used to our law and perhaps take a year finishing up in our law here for our Statutes and so on, to become familiar with them but, basically, they are skilled in the same law (interruption).

I'm talking mainly about those who are skilled in our law and they have done very successfully in this Province. The idea of having those people wait five years is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. I suggest that you take this back and you redraw it so that, if they show the intention of becoming a Canadian citizen, then, let the Benchers set the rules that way…as long as they show their intention. Why should they have to wait five years to practise their profession? Ridiculous!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Does the Attorney-General wish to reconsider this and bring it back in with amendments? Or, if you want to do it, you'll do it in committee? (Interruption.)

Right. Will you be considering amendments in closing the debate? Will you be telling us that…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to hear from the Attorney-General, in closing the debate, his opinion on the comments that have been made.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 98 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

Bill 67 intituled An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Second reading of Bill 103, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 103, Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, Bill 103 is the Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act.

In presenting this bill for second reading, I first want to express my appreciation to the Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey for presenting to this Legislature a bill similar in principle, designed to accomplish the same purpose as Bill 103. I think, too, I should include the Member for Columbia River and, particularly, to congratulate the Leaders of the three Parties represented here. I've had a little greater opportunity than most of you to listen to the radio broadcasts and watch the television broadcasts these last several days and I do appreciate the reception that this particular bill has received from the Leaders of the three Parties.

I think the principle of the bill, of course, is well known — an attempt to bring to a halt the ceaseless efforts of the purveyors of tobacco to sell their product and particularly, to introduce the product to the young people of the Province.

There is general consensus that smoking is harmful. In years gone by, perhaps that evidence wasn't quite so clear as it is today. But the more evidence that is adduced to demonstrate the harmful effects of smoking, it seems the greater the effort on the part of the firms engaged in the business to engage in extensive advertising to create the opposite impression. We've had a very intensive and a very persuasive advertising campaign in this particular area. We've seen in the United States an attempt made there, through legislation, to stop the advertising on radio and television. Some other countries of the world as well have taken limited steps.

Our step, here, is one of total prohibition of advertising. We're not attempting to dictate to people as to whether they shall or shall not smoke, or whether they shall or shall not sell the product. That, of course, would not be possible for us to do. But, hopefully, this legislation will reduce the intensity of the propaganda that is being presented today in every public media — propaganda that is becoming more extensive and on a larger and larger scale in all avenues of the news media. The real genesis of this legislation is, of course, the bill that has already been passed by this House, Bill 11, which sets up the $25 million fund to provide for education against smoking, for one thing. It would seem inconsistent for us, on the one hand, to spend the taxpayers' money in this fashion if, on the other hand, we are going to countenance and condone the efforts, through advertising, to sell the product and especially the appeal to the youth of the Province that it is a socially desirable thing to do.

I mentioned the bill of the honourable Member, Bill 9, and the principle is not too different in this bill, although I think our bill is more clear in terms of the complete prohibition, subject to the exceptions that are properly made, I suggest, in terms of the packaging and the sale of the product in the stores of the Province. Enforcement of this measure, and this is an important provision, will be by the injunctive process as set forth in section 3 of the bill . Contraventions of the legislation will not be subject to prosecution under the Summary Convictions Act. The advertising of cigarettes and tobacco is not, in our view, within the range of activities that should, at this time, be made subject to prosecution in our Criminal Courts. However, it should be open to any citizen or group of citizens in this Province to enforce the legislation if indeed there are any contraventions.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there hasn't been any indication, at this time that we won't have the cooperation of the manufacturers, the wholesalers or the retailers of these products. I would certainly expect them to comply fully with

[ Page 806 ]

the provisions of the legislation and, in my view, it will only be by that compliance that they will have the respect and goodwill of the people of this Province, assuming that the measure does meet with the approval of the House. I would hope, too, that the Members of the Legislature might go the additional mile, so to speak, and commemorate this occasion by kicking the habit — those who haven't already done so. That way it will have an even greater impact as far as the Province of British Columbia is concerned. I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, it's easier for those of us who are nonsmokers to be virtuous about those people who do smoke. I have the occasional cigar but, fortunately, I was lucky enough to be able to kick the habit in my very early 20's. That was just a couple of years ago…(laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, maybe, not for the same reasons but certainly with similar intentions as the Government has announced. I have very strong feelings about the way that the best brains of the advertising world have been called upon to sell certain products in a manner that leaves the impression that, without these products a young person, or for that matter, anyone, in our society, is just not quite successful, or just not quite capable, unless they use these particular products. Tobacco is one of the products that has become the focus of the best brains and the best hucksterism of Madison Avenue. How else…they even sell political parties, too, and I suppose they use almost the same skills…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope that some day this bill would be expanded to include that. While we are dealing with this particular bill, one of the things that distresses me about this kind of hucksterism is the use by the advertising industry, on behalf of their clients, of examples around the use of cigarettes that, in my opinion, are very misleading if not outright deceitful. For one thing, there is the abuse of the roles of the sexes. The whole concept of the degrading use of the image of the woman in North America is part and parcel of the use of advertising in the cigarette industry. One only has to pause and scan these ads to see that the men of distinction, or the man who has the ability to garner around him a particular kind of redhead, or blonde or shapely young lady, is identified with the kind of cigarettes they smoke, rather than… Yes, the brunettes too, all of them. Well, the impression… There is an attempt to leave the impression that manliness and smoking cigarettes go hand in hand and, of course, that indeed is not the case at all. The opposite is true. After all, for a young person who is considering a close acquaintanceship with a young lady or vice versa, nothing is worse than tobacco on your breath. Also, the kind of mess the cigarettes…or the lingering smell of cigarette smoke on clothing or in a room.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't know whether we are talking about the principle of the bill or whether it's my conscience that is bothering me, but I wish you would get back to whatever principle there is in this bill (laughter).

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Chair, not everyone has been taken in by that advertising but there has been the attempt by the industry, through the use of advertising, to equate success with the use of cigarettes. Nothing is more deceptive than seeing a man riding off on a Palamino horse into the West, with cigarette smoke trailing as a measure of his success — the Western image for a certain kind of cigarette.

I would think that this bill would be far more difficult to deal with in a Province like Ontario. We don't have a tobacco industry in this Province and, of course, because of that we can afford to be, politically, far more virtuous. Nonetheless, the bill does represent a step forward, in terms of a Government saying that, on the basis of health reasons, cigarette smoking should not be promulgated by the use of hucksterism through advertising or the advertising media.

A case is attempted to be made against this bill in that certain printing will be lost, or certain revenues will be lost, to printing establishments or the newspapers. I regret any newspaper or any publication that has to rely on part of its revenue as pushing this kind of advertising but I would challenge the whole role, then, of the tobacco industry. If they feel that employment is at stake because of their particular advertising, I would challenge them to place ads in the same newspapers with the same amount of budget, warning against the dangers of smoking cigarettes. If they are truly concerned about the public welfare let them come up with counter smoking commercials, such as some American television broadcasting stations are presently showing — how square it is to smoke cigarettes or to use tobacco. That challenge, I think, should be added to by the Premier of this Province. I would like to hear the Premier publicly ask the tobacco industry that is selling its products here in British Columbia to match its social responsibility with its sales and make sure that the funds that they have spent on advertising go either into medical research projects to determine the detrimental effects of smoking, or otherwise, or to advertising programmes against the very products that they are trying to sell.

This bill, also, is one small step taken by legislators, in a small way, to protest against the hucksterism that exists in North America, which attempts to push products on the young people that we all know do not do them any good.

In welcoming this bill, I want to extend my appreciation to the Second Member for Point Grey, who has had the rare distinction of not only having one of his bills accepted in this House…and the Member from Columbia, the two of them…the rare distinction of not only having this bill accepted in this House, but of having had public recognition for the bill by the Government. It's not amazing — it's a touchy bill. That's why they are spreading the responsibility on all the Parties, as much as they can. But, they are politicians and, when you're looking for a little safe ground, there is nothing like spreading the whole thing around. That's like focusing on Bull Durham, but we'll accept that sprinkling and go on, leading the way in North America, I hope, in ending all cigarette advertising and not worrying about the loss of any tobacco farmers' votes and pressing on in our enlightened ways — on very safe ground, because we know that none of us can ever be rolled up and smoked out of political existence by this kind of bill in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 807 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): He is a very difficult act to follow, Mr. Speaker, I must say.

I don't think there is any question of a doubt, Mr. Speaker, that smokers have rights and they can continue, under this bill, to smoke just as much as they wish to. I think the position that has been taken by the Members of this House, and I do hope all of the Members of this House, is that people have got a right to health and it's the function of Government and it's the function of the Legislature to do whatever we can to protect and to advance the health of the people whom we are very privileged to represent.

It seems that the tobacco industry and their advertisers, up to this point, have been given pretty well a 12-month open hunting license in the distribution of their products. But, you know, they've got to remember one thing, and I think we should illustrate this fact to the general public, and that is cigarettes are not necessary, they are not a necessity of, life. To some extent, they are a fringe benefit and fringe benefits are fine and dandy but we are not talking about advertising food when we are talking about advertising cigarettes. If we are going to be criticised by the industry which I think is pretty evident if any one happened to read the newspaper reports over the weekend, if we are going to be criticised by the industry for attempting to advance the health of our communities, in my view, this is just the kind of criticism I welcome. Quite frankly, my back is quite strong enough to stand that and so is the back of every person, I'd say, in this House. It shows one thing, if nothing else, that we're on the move in this Province. The people are supporting this bill and we are trying to wake up B.C. people to the fact that we'd like to see B.C. be the most healthy place in which the people can live.

The owners of these products, and they are harmful products and potentially dangerous products, quite frankly, are obscuring or smoke screening the issue with the report that many of the spin-off benefits of advertising will suffer. That, to me, is absolute hypocrisy because they can continue on, if they wish to, with all their good works. They can be just as altruistic as they wish to be but they just don't have to advertise. It boils down to that. I think for anyone in the industry to suggest the motivation for tobacco advertising is for anything other than to increase sales is something that I just cannot buy.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in other parts…we are not alone in this. There seem to be all sorts of criticisms pointed to B.C. today, but we're not alone in the stand that has been taken. Lots of other areas of the world have taken similar steps.

There is a very interesting report in the Victoria Times on January 29 of this year, and here are some startling figures. Figures from the Tobacco Research Council showed Americans smoke more cigarettes than any of the other 30 national groups in the survey. You know, I bet you that is attributable greatly to advertising. Next on the list is Canada, which is amazing to me, followed by Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Switzerland, West Germany and Belgium. "American cigarette sales dropped after a sensational report by the U.S. Surgeon-General in 1964, when he linked cigarettes with lung cancer. Since 1966, health hazard warnings have been printed on cigarette packs." I would just like to say a word on that before I finish my remarks. Carrying on with this article, he said, "Cigarette advertisements were barred from American television screens this year, and radio, five years after a similar move in Britain. The British were temporarily scared in 1962 by facts and figures presented by the Royal College of Physicians. The Royal College produced a report this month, January, 1971, which said that 27,500 middle-aged Britons die every year from smoking, with lung cancer, coronary heart disease and chronic bronchitis as the main killers. The College said that 90 per cent of lung cancer — this is an amazing figure — 90 per cent of lung cancer deaths were from smoking. The College of Physicians and Surgeons in England said they hoped, this time, to "frighten people to life." Italy has had cigarette advertising banned since 1962. In Saudi Arabia, listen to this, cigarette advertisements are banned by law and penalties for infringement range up to six months imprisonment. In Sweden, this year, people will be warned in the campaign, 'If you must smoke, then, don't inhale."' The article goes on and on.

I would like to see very much in the bill one thing that is not here, Mr. Speaker, and that is a warning. They have a warning in Great Britain printed on the packages and it's to this effect. "Warning by Her Majesty's Government — smoking can damage your health." In the United States, since last November, cigarette makers have had to put on each pack sold in the U.S. this notice. "Warning — the Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health." In the bill that I earlier placed before this Legislature — and I ask leave, tonight, Mr. Speaker that it be withdrawn — I included the caveat, "Warning — this product has a nicotine and tar content that is harmful to human health." I think it would be most useful, at some point, if, in British Columbia, we added that warning on each and every package of cigarettes that are sold in the Province.

One word in the bill has disturbed me slightly and I've mentioned it to the Attorney-General and that is the word "distribute." I hope that perhaps we can take a pretty careful look at it because it's certainly not the intent of this legislation to see that the newsboys and the corner stores are run into the injunctive processes. That's not the intent of the legislation at all. The intent of the legislation is to get at the root-core advertising problem. Really and truly, I very much go along with the statements of the Attorney-General, when he said that he expected and hoped that the industry would subscribe to the law and do what it can to back it. By that, I certainly do hope the industry is not going to tear south of the border to advertise their wares and see that they are pumped into British Columbia, thereby deliberately flaunting the law because, if they mean what they say, they should certainly not be doing that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, you will recollect that in an earlier debate on another bill, even before the Minister of Health had indicated the opinions of the Government, I had said that I felt that liquor and tobacco advertising should be prohibited. I recognize the problem and I recognize the fact that the prohibition of advertising will not stop people from smoking. It doesn't interfere with the rights of the manufacturer. It doesn't interfere with the rights of the individual.

You know, I remember when the Minister of Agriculture quit smoking. There had been a film shown over at the old cafeteria. I wasn't able to get to see that film. That must have been about 1953 or 1954 and the Minister saw that film and he hasn't smoked since. I remember the Attorney-General being attacked by one of his own Members because of the

[ Page 808 ]

fact that he…no, no, the present Attorney-General — by one of his own Members because of his pipe, which evidently was pretty awful, according to those who sat with him in the Caucus room.

The passing of this bill will not solve the problem, I agree. I support the bill, I advocated it and I have done, without question, for a long time. I myself am one of those people who got hooked very young. I left school when I was 14 and, in my culture and in my society, when you went to work it was a recognition of your manhood. The other part of the recognition was the fact that you smoked. It was part of my society, my culture, my generation. Anything that happens and continues to happen is a reflection of its culture and its generation. It is our responsibility as legislators to see that we take the necessary steps to change the culture, to change the accepted recognitions, to change the accepted status symbols in order to redirect society to a better position.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, it's very easy for us to do this in this House because it doesn't affect any economic sector, except perhaps the newspapers. Looking at the last annual report of Pacific Press, all right — it won't put them out of business. It won't bankrupt them. But look at the stupidity of the Federal Government and, here, I ask my Liberal friends to please convey the message to the Federal Government. They take public money, they take tax dollars, to help the tobacco farmers of the Niagara Peninsula grow more and better tobacco and subsidize them. Then, they take public money, tax money, to subsidize and pay for the Department of Health advertisements to try to get people to stop smoking. Now, this is part of the stupidity, I think, of the situation in which we find ourselves. In a dollar-oriented society, in the past, the weight has always come down on the side of the dollar. I think that the onus is, primarily, on the Federal Government because they have to decide rather than spend money in promoting the growth of the tobacco whether they should be spending the money in getting those farmers to go into some other area of necessary agriculture.

We support this bill. I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition in the whole field of advertising. There is a later bill coming up, where I'll have more to say about advertising, its role in society, where it's gone wrong, where it's right, where it's wrong. As one of those who have, on occasion, managed to kick the habit, I know how difficult it is. This bill won't help me a bit. I hope it will help a good many other people, especially young people. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out the advertising that goes on when you relate the smoking of a cigarette to healthy outdoor riding a horse into the Far West…you see someone sliding down a ski slope — very healthy, very invigorating and, then, they enjoy a cigarette. Now, you know, that's just sheer nonsense and it's part of the dollar-oriented society which I have been fighting for a good many years. That's why I support this ban on advertising, no matter what it does to Pacific Press.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.B. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a reflection on our society that some of our smaller newspapers depend on tobacco and liquor advertising to break even. I think that we have come into a sad state of affairs when this type of promotion, the glamourization of liquor and tobacco, has to become the mainstay of our local press. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with some of the suggestions that have been made here that we should have the health hazard attachment on the cigarette package. I think most adults are quite capable of deciding whether or not they want to smoke. I think that, if we wanted to carry this to the nth degree, we would have to start putting health hazard notations on practically half of the foods we consume. So, I disagree with this type of approach.

I have some reservations as to the effectiveness of this legislation, simply, because the National magazines and the National media will still be able to carry the glamourization of these things into the homes in the Province. I don't disagree with the fact of presenting a product but I do disagree with the way they are presenting — that it is only socially acceptable if you do certain things. Mind you, this doesn't mean that I intend to stop smoking because, contrary to the Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat, sometimes, out in the fresh air it's quite refreshing.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation is necessary but I think it's only a step and that we should put pressure on the National Government because all ads of this kind should be banned throughout Canada. Furthermore, we should get rid of the ridiculous situation that some of our tax money is going to subsidize the tobacco growers and, then, more of our tax money goes to try to get people to stop smoking. I think this is where we should really put the pressure on because if you have this multiplicity of advertising, I think it's going to nullify the effect completely.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting listening to the debate and I've had lots of opportunity to think about this bill over the weekend. I would like to say, quite candidly, in spite of the rather delightful virtue that has been paraded in this House, tonight, that I really think to vote against this bill is tantamount to voting against motherhood. Frankly, I have always been in favour of motherhood, myself, and I intend to vote for the bill. I do feel that this business of cigarette companies, in relation to the area that I have the honour to represent, in some areas in the Province has been a goose that has laid a golden egg. The unfortunate thing is that the golden egg was always in the form of twins. While there are many social functions and very fine, benevolent functions in our Province that have been largely supported by the tobacco companies, which represent the golden egg — and I think in terms of the Okanagan where the Penticton Peach Festival, the Kelowna Regatta, western Canada's largest winter carnival and Canada's second largest winter carnival have, quite frankly, often been bailed out by the tobacco companies, that is the golden egg — but it has been accompanied by its twin, which is a very dark, cancerous, emphysematic, rather destructive other egg.

When I vote for this bill, I vote for it, realizing that certain sectors of our social undertakings are, in fact, going to have to raise money elsewhere. I would hope that what has been expressed here, throughout the evening, that the cigarette companies, and the tobacco companies entered these undertakings for more than just promotion of their products and, in fact, for the fine income tax deduction and also with a genuine interest in social development and physical fitness, that they will continue to do this in spite of the fact that the advertising credits will be curtailed.

I think that it is quite fair to say that some of the companies have, in fact, abused the privilege of advertising

[ Page 809 ]

and one just has to listen to the radio…even as close as last week, one of the major companies has a very charming young lady come on who says that she really used to be with it, she went to university and she used to take piano lessons and she used to go to church, but, now, she's really swinging and she's going to do her own thing and she's going down to the southern part of the United States to lounge on the beach, paint and do her own thing — and smoke a certain brand of cigarette. This is very appealing advertising to young people. I feel that it was an abuse, that has been in practice before now and there is certainly a good reason for this bill. There was another company, last year, in British Columbia that used to give out coupons and when they interviewed the people who won the coupons, and, unfortunately, I wasn't one of them, said that the lady was going to use this money to pay monumental medical bills. When we checked into this case, as I had the privilege to do, in fact, she did not have any medical bills and such a situation was unlikely to arise in a Province that has such extensive medical care as we have in British Columbia. So, I believe that it is fair to say that the tobacco companies have very much abused the privilege of advertising.

One of the other reasons that I intend to vote for this bill is because of the experience that I've had with my own children, with other young people and on the Committee for Health and Welfare, when rather vacant minds said to us, when they were testifying as to the use of drugs in British Columbia, that it was no worse for you than smoking. I realized then that as they were addicted to habit and, through habit, to drugs, so possibly many of us were addicted to this so-called innocuous habit of smoking which, in fact, is not innocuous but highly detrimental to our health.

I believe another reason worthy of supporting this bill is that so many times many of us meet young people today and they say, "What can I do?" if we're talking about pollution. "What can I do, I'm just one person?" I think, in this bill, we are showing to them that we, as just one little Government in Canada, are bringing in a bill which is going to have, I believe, a very strong influence across Canada. I frankly believe that if we can live with this bill, and I don't think that it's going to be as easy as we imagine, other Provincial Governments will again follow the British Columbia Government and will bring in similar bills. Then hopefully the Federal Government will bring in a similar bill, so that we can show here in British Columbia and across Canada that, while you can't legislate against people smoking, you can, as the Member from Cowichan-Malahat said so well, "You can, by leading, change public opinion. You can if you really believe it, change the course of society."

I think we are taking just one little step in this bill in doing this in British Columbia. Speaking for the Okanagan, which I have the pleasure and honour to represent, I would challenge the Federal Government to follow, too, and take those tax dollars that are spent in promoting finer tobacco and the tobacco industry and utilize this money for the benefit of the Okanagan Valley fruit farmers, who produce a product which, if taken one a day will keep the doctor away.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Just one or two words in support of the position we are taking in this House. We are dealing with a thing where the scientific evidence is in and it's definitely deleterious to human health.

It's not a health food product like, for example, a glass of wine, and we have a right to legislate in this field. The only question really is, Mr. Speaker, why do we have to be here considering banning this particular type of advertising today because, if there ever has been false, deceptive, fatal advertising, it's been tobacco advertising. We shouldn't have to be passing this bill. The people who have put out this advertising should have been prosecuted and visited with the heavy penalties of the law a long time ago for deceptive, dangerous advertising. They should have been sued by the estates of the millions of people who have had their lives lost or shortened as a result of being lead to smoke cigarettes by the advertising that has been put out.

We shouldn't have to be passing this kind of legislation today. This is a very exceptional kind of thing, something harmful to health. The right to know gives way to danger to human health. I fully support this kind of a bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is a bit of a waste of time to talk, because the fate of this bill is pretty well known. I have stood in my place in this House, on many occasions over the years, and appealed for some action to be taken to restrict smoking. I don't think there is anybody in this House who has not personal knowledge of some friend or more who has lost their life through lung cancer. I'm of the opinion that this has been so severe that it won't be very long before all Provinces in Canada, the Federal Government and also the States and the Federal Government of the United States will put a ban on advertising to sell tobacco.

It's a serious thing because, we understand, that the per capita consumption of cigarettes in the United States, and this includes Canada, too, is 4,000 cigarettes per year per person. I think, it's a tragic thing when we can drive our cars today and watch kiddies going to school 12 and 14 years of age smoking cigarettes. The fact that cigarettes have been causing lung cancer has been known for many years but the full effect of that knowledge has been defeated, to a great extent, by the vast amount of money which the tobacco companies have put into medical research. There is no doubt that this money they have put into that field has lead many doctors to support the tobacco companies against the actual knowledge that lung cancer was caused by cigarettes.

I think it's worthy of note, too, that not only the doctors will commend this bill, but every fire chief in the Nation is going to commend it, too, because the loss from cigarette sin oking is just phenomenal.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the unusual things that has happened in connection with cigarette smoking and advertising has been that one of the leaders of the nonsmokers organization in British Columbia and a former Minister of Health in this Government had the misfortune to have his wife win $10,000 in one of those cigarette company give-aways. You know, Mr. Speaker, and I address you with all respect, sir, that if we want to sell something, we advertise it. And, if you want to sell more of it, you advertise it. And, if you want to reduce the sales of any article, just stop advertising. Even though we know that many people today will not stop smoking on account of not seeing the adverts, it is going to be very obvious that in two years, if we can stop advertising, there will be less tobacco sold. If you can carry on for five years, the sale of tobacco will probably be less

[ Page 810 ]

than half of what it is today. This is a step in the right direction. I strongly support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Port Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Everybody has indicated that cigarette smoking is a bad thing, that it has been well documented medically, that it has serious implications for everyone's health and the fact that probably cigarette smoking is far more addicting than alcohol or perhaps even various other forms of drugs. The thing is that the youth are the ones on whom this particular advertising preys more directly and, of course, the industry is not unaware of this. Much of their advertising, in the past, has gone to glamourize this and to try, perhaps, to get the inadequate person, the person who is trying to find himself, to identify with beautiful people.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that it's really enough for us to try to ban cigarette smoking. Do you know that any programme that I know of to try to take a positive approach has not so far been very successful? One of the things that I would like to say is that I hope that we are able to take the vacuum up and perhaps through funds made available, get some hard statistical evidence, in terms of what years does the student population start to smoke, how many of them who start to smoke become addicted, so that we really have some sort of base, now, that we can refer to in four or five years to know whether, in fact, this ban has really been successful or whether we are just trying to salve our consciences. I think, sometimes, that it's the forbidden fruit which is more pleasurable. It's possible that, simply by banning cigarette smoking, in terms of advertising, that we may, in fact, not have the effect on smoking we hope to have. It may be, in fact, that it has no impact on it, or it's possible that it might even have an increase. So, I think it's very important that we try to get some basic, scientific information together on the incidence of smoking. Not only should we do this but we should proceed, in a positive way, towards negating the glamour that's associated with smoking. I think that the advertising agencies which, heretofore, have made many millions of dollars and who are very aware psychologically of where to hit young people to encourage them to do this are the people who should be providing funds to do exactly the reverse thing. The advertising to discourage tobacco smoking has not been effective. It's been amateurish and has had little or no effect on it. I think it's high time, if we are serious about this, we not only get rid of the tobacco advertising but, we must, in a positive and vigourous way, in a sophisticated way, get into the business of trying to point out to the youth and to others just how harmful the habit of smoking is.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, it's rather amusing to listen to all the virtuous confessions that are going around the House tonight. I think a lot of them are pious platitudes. Advertising, to my mind, in most cases, has always been a policy to try to enslave people, whether it's to use bufferin or aspirin, or the proper face powder, or a certain macaroni mix. Advertising has always been to try to enslave people. Here, we are, in this bill…makes me think of the Opposition bringing a bill before this House. They know well that it's not going to go through but, at least, it demonstrates something. There is no penalty in this bill. There's nothing to say in this bill that if the people keep on doing what they are doing, that they will be penalized for breaking this act. The advertising that goes on… I don't hold any brief for advertising at all because I think I could do well without it. I don't think that the average person who started smoking started from advertising. The start of smoking very seldom ever starts from advertising. I think changing of brands — advertising has done a lot about that, one brand against the other, one filter against the other. Some people get the idea that they can switch to another brand of cigarettes and they will be healthier with that brand compared to the other one. We talk about the population explosion all the time and how we are going to be pushed off this earth in a few years. I wonder why we are so worried about people committing suicide. I can't understand it. In one breath they tell you that you have got to have birth control and you've got to have everything to stop the population. Then, when somebody wants to commit suicide, they won't let them commit suicide. They try to stop them from doing it.

I don't think that this bill really is going to attain what it is intended to. I think it's a nice image bill. This is what it is, it's a nice image bill. The advertising that is going on in British Columbia is…(interruption). Sure, it's a nice image bill. The advertising that's going on in British Columbia, you are going to have an awful lot… All you are going to do, of course, is push the advertising out of the Province and they are going to bring it into the Province from the outside. This is what's going to happen in this regard. You are going to have a tremendous flow of advertising from Alberta and from the United States and over the TV. You are not going to stop it at all by this bill.

When anybody tells me they expect the tobacco companies to spend their money to try to do the opposite to what they are doing now, that's just fancy thinking. It doesn't mean a thing. I think we should try to get the Federal Government, probably… I believe what they tell us — that it's a health problem. There is no food value in smoking and I'm not opposed to trying to stop smoking. But, to think that this bill is going to solve the problem or even attempt to solve the problem, I don't believe it. I had two children and neither one of them smoked. I smoked and they never smoked. All the advertising in the world has never started them to smoke. I don't think that, on the whole, it will have any real effect because, back in the years gone by, even with prohibition, we tried to stop people from drinking whisky and they didn't stop at all. So, sometimes, you can be a bit of a hypocrite, in cases like this.

I'm wondering why they didn't put any penalty clause in this. This is what I'm wondering about. I don't think it's worth the paper it's written on unless you have some sort of penalty for these big companies. They are not going to listen to you if there are no penalties. To me, you are trying to look virtuous on the outside and, on the inside, it's an entirely different story.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Ever since the advent of medicare and the fact that we have become more and more our brother's keeper, I suppose that we should be interested as to what effect our health has on each other's tax dollar, when it comes to paying for the many services that are necessary to take care of someone who is

[ Page 811 ]

having a lung removal, or some other ailment that comes from the result of smoking, of which we are all so much aware. There have been so many definite statistics and scientific discoveries to prove it. I suppose, too, that tonight although there may not be so much muscle in the bill, or the strength as some people would like to see, I'm sure that our grandparents, especially our grandmothers, would rise up and call us blessed tonight. I can remember, the ones in my day, who were saying that cigarettes will give you cancer and stunt your growth. So I guess they weren't so far wrong, after all. Grandmothers should be taking a little credit for what great scientific researchers have only just discovered — what they had already told us to be a fact.

One of the speakers previously mentioned the effect it will have on the saving of fire protection but I also know it will save a great many lives if we can begin to turn back again…those who have succumbed to the habit. Someone has said, "Don't smoke in bed, the ashes that fall to the floor may be your own." That happens to be more truthful than fiction or funny. So, I think, then, the other fact that we should recognize is the desire to clean up our environment. There has been so much said about the great need to clean up the pollution in advertising. It is not just deceitful, it is downright dishonest. It misleads and when you sit…I have noticed in many homes, as I have the opportunity to go into, you find that the television is the media that does the babysitting for under-five-year-olds who are not attending day school. Every time you see one of those commercials, they are more interesting really than the play to the youngster. They are geared for interest and really they attract you. I feel that we are our young people's keeper. I think that the day will come when they will stand on the cancer-ridden chests of a lot of us and say we should have done it earlier. They won't be pontificating or virtuous.

Tonight, instead of looking at the people who don't smoke and say that they are being virtuous in their talks, maybe, the person who smokes and has the audacity to get up and say don't do it is the person who young people today have criticised and said, "You are a bunch of hypocrites. You say one thing and do the other." A lot of us have had that thrown at us, too. I smoked when I was about 19. I smoked for six months and it was only because I was milking 21 head of cows and I couldn't stand the smell of the dairy barn. That's why — cleaning the dairy barn smelt good when you smoked a cigarette. But, I only lasted… I didn't smoke over six months and we weren't really supposed to smoke in the barn, anyway. We might have burned it down.

Our young people deserve, at least, an understanding that we are endeavouring to make it easier for them to enjoy the good things of life, without associating with those things that we know are proven detrimental to them. I think, tonight, that young people are going to say you are on our side and we are on your side.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Summing up this debate, we have learned one thing. The advertiser, who sells this product that is so undesirable for the health, can be pointed in any given direction by the display of a certain number of dollars. The Honourable Member for Alberni has made it clear that the advertisers and the newspapers that today could dedicate their devotion to the peddling of this particularly evil weed, tomorrow could be dedicated to the proposition of stamping it out if they were given sufficient advertising money.

I suggest that the other fund that we have discussed in this House earlier might usefully be turned in that direction — to these people who are so easily swung around in the wind and perhaps they could devise daily pictures of beautiful young people dying from cancer and this sort of thing that might discourage smoking.

I point out what is happening in this bill is that we have decided that tobacco is bad and that it has no redeeming features. Consequently, it's fair enough to ban advertising of it. Now, the reason I will go along with this bill, in principle, is because I cannot see any redeeming features in tobacco, other than the jobs it produces in Ontario, growing tobacco. Other than that, I can't see anything. The advertising aspect of it can be taken up by the economy in other ways with the money saved. But, I do suggest that, if we applied the same reasoning to, let's say, gasoline — gasoline contains lead, ergo, it pollutes the atmosphere and, therefore, they should ban advertising of gasoline.

Fortunately for that theory, gasoline is necessary for the economy and has some purpose in getting cars moving around the country. So, we say that we won't ban that advertising. We may have another problem when we deal with liquor but, on this particular subject, everybody has agreed tobacco is no good, except to the guy who wants to smoke.

I'm going to suggest that, if the tobacco companies were entirely altruistic in their dedication to sports, good works and charities, they should be prepared to spend the money they have otherwise spent on advertising on those sports and other activities as a charitable gesture of their interest in the community. Or will their interest in the community suddenly cease when they lose the right to advertise? I'm going to suggest to the Government that, in this bill, it provide for regulations by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council… I'm going to suggest to the Government that they permit the cigarette companies to put inside their packages, for the person who buys their package, how much they contribute to this work in the community so that they may continue to back up, without publicity, other publicity than that notice in their package, that they do contribute to the DuMaurier Sports International or the hockey games or any other kind of contribution they make to the community. Other than that, I don't think they should be allowed to advertise. The other point…(interruption).

Well, that's their conscience money. I hate to see all that money that could otherwise go to good works being swallowed up, as it were, in profits. It will all equalize out, sooner or later. Those who smoke will continue to smoke, unless we have some other advertising that makes them realize the folly of their ways. I am going to suggest that it's not enough to ban this advertising without substituting some other kind of constructive way of persuading people to stop smoking. It's a little too late, very often, to stop smoking when the doctor tells you that you have emphysema or cancer or any of the other ailments that come from smoking tobacco. The time to stop it is at that critical age, between 12 years of age and 20, when young people come under the power of advertising. I urge all of you to support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of the banning of cigarette

[ Page 812 ]

advertising. I'm not really rising tonight to disagree to a great degree with that fundamental idea of cigarettes. I'm sure that, as one Member said, everyone who votes for this bill this evening will probably go home and light up a cigarette and congratulate themselves on the excellent job they have done in making the world safer for people who do not want to smoke (interruption). No, I'm saying that the majority of people in this Chamber smoke. I really don't feel that that is the question. I just bring it up because a great many of them do.

I do think that one of the concerns here, Mr. Speaker, has to deal with the question of what has happened within the industry itself. The assumption, of course, that the cancelling of cigarette advertising will reduce the sale of cigarettes certainly has not been borne out by the recent statistics that have now come out of the industry. You merely have to read last week's issue of Time magazine to see that it was up 11 per cent in February when there was no advertising. I would think that, if you take the sale of cigarettes and add to it the sale and the use of marijuana, you would find that the total area of smoking has increased tremendously because marijuana, without the benefit of any advertising, is growing far faster than any other form of consumption that we know about. If we are dealing here with the question of whether, by stopping cigarette ads, you are going to stop cigarette smoking, then, I'm very sure that everyone in this House is going to be very bitterly disappointed.

I do point out, Mr. Speaker, some of the dangers that are inherent in this because, suddenly, this bill has become an attack on advertising. Somehow, I feel that if this is the case, it is a very, very serious and very drastic mistake. Advertising, even within this very industry, if you go back ten years, no one used a filter in cigarettes and, somehow, through the use of some form of a message, the majority of the public has been moved into the use of filter in cigarettes, through a combination…(interruption).

No, what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, what would happen if the industry suddenly came up with a filter that was 100 per cent perfect and could completely eliminate the dangers? Would you prohibit them from advertising that filter? I ask this merely as a question. If you ban everything in relationship to a particular subject, do you, then, stop them from…if they can find something that would eliminate the entire danger, is that eliminated? The question of lumping together cigarettes, cigars and cigarettes, when the medical knowledge you have indicates that, perhaps, if we convert people over, if people are going to smoke, if there were an alternative that said, "If you are going to smoke perhaps you should be smoking cigars rather than cigarettes," would you not be in a position to save a number of people who are liable to get cancer from cigarettes today if you could move them into something else? I think there is a moral question that has to be asked, Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of a bill such as this. It is wonderful to stand and give the moral principles of assuming that, by immediately banning advertising, you will have eliminated the problem. Every medical doctor knows that if you can convert, at this moment, every cigarette smoker over to cigar smoking, you would probably eliminate a great amount of the cancer that was going to be caused by cigarettes. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that, within this automatic curtailment, just a blanket curtailment, without any further extension of it within any studies, we run a very definite danger of criticising advertising, as such, and that is not the case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I disagree completely with the First Member for Vancouver Centre. I believe that his whole argument is based on erroneous impressions on the power of advertising. It was only a few years ago, when the…(interruption). I said the power of advertising! It's one of the most powerful forces in the world — the pushing force of advertising. Only a few years ago, very few girls smoked and, then, there was the advertising campaign and you saw it being brought forth, showing the smart young girl, the smart young woman, with the cigarette. So, they made it acceptable, socially acceptable. That is powerful advertising and that's the reason why I support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the lawyers when we have the legal debates so, as somebody who has earned his living for twenty years or more in the advertising business, I am going to have my say on this one. I've heard some pretty pious statements tonight and some Members may not like what I'm going to say.

I am quite proud of the industry I represent. I happen to think that it does a heck of a lot of good besides some of the things the Premier has pointed out. There is one truth, I believe, about advertising, Mr. Speaker. It very accurately reflects the society in which that advertising takes place. If we have double standards in society, advertising will reflect them. If we have double standards in legislation in Ottawa, advertising will reflect them. It's no use blaming advertising. Advertising is the product of the people who live in any society. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our double standards regarding the consumption of tobacco is with us in almost every commodity we might face. If we are going to take this attitude regarding tobacco, we had better start doing some pretty close looking at some other products that we have accepted with some pretty good rationalization.

I would agree with those Members who say that the simple cutting out of advertising will not solve the problem. I think it's a step in the right direction and I have advocated it in this House before, much to the criticism of some people in my industry. Cutting out the advertising will help the problem. I wouldn't be in advertising, if I didn't believe you could sell a message. If you can inform people about a product, that is something that I think can be good. You can inform people about bad products, too, and I think that's what we've been doing in our industry for some time in advertising. By stopping that aspect of it, we'll have a constructive move.

But, Mr. Speaker, this isn't going to solve it. We are talking, here, about a multibillion dollar industry that is not going to take this sort of thing lying down. It's not going to take it lying down in the United States where, still today remember, they've only banned it from radio and television, and it's not going to take it lying down in British Columbia. We're dealing with very big money and they are not about to stop making money today. They are going to find other means of peddling their product. Mr. Speaker, it's been pretty common knowledge in my industry, that there are research groups busy, now, and they have been busy for many months researching how to peddle this product when the advertising is stopped. This is not a surprise move — it's

[ Page 813 ]

been expected. So, I don't believe this will solve it. It very well may help and I hope it does, but I think we have got to be very wary of this industry which has such a grasp on the economy of the United States, and Canada, too.

I would just like to correct the Member from Kootenay who suggests, as many people who have phoned me recently also suggested, that we will drive advertising money to the United States and point out to them that they are ahead of us. No matter how much money we might drive to the United States, they still can't put cigarette or tobacco advertising on the radio or television. It is banned in the United States at the moment. We're going the next step and we're banning it from other media.

Mr. Speaker, I put in a word of caution about the application, the literal application, of this bill. I would urge the Government to use some common sense, here, too, which I know the Attorney-General will. There are some technical problems that cannot be solved just overnight certainly in my industry. And, until the…(interruption). Oh, I appreciate the legal niceties of the bill but the Attorney-General will have much to do with it, too.

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief, and certainly the belief in my industry, that the Federal Government will move in radio and television, very shortly, in this field as well. As they do, that will solve one of the very great problems this bill creates because, with all the technical advances of my industry, it still is going to be pretty difficult to cut out eight-second commercials from the National Hockey League games and it's going to cause a nervous breakdown on the part of some television switchers. I can think of some other examples, like any magazine that might come into this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would say only one more thing and I say it to my own industry from my place here. I am one who believes that we are overgoverned and we have too darn many laws. The law that we are discussing tonight would not be necessary if my industry and other industries like it and connected with it had chosen, instead, to police themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. CLARK: We have been talking about this in my industry for years and, in my opinion, the industry was just too gutless to do it themselves. Having said that, I will say one thing more. I believe my industry will respect the law and, despite what the Members down there say, when this bill is proclaimed, I suggest no cigarette or tobacco advertising will appear on British Columbia radio or television or I will be greatly disillusioned with my own industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I am not a smoker but I'm told by those who have smoked and who have quit that there is only one way and that is to go cold turkey. I think that this particular Government is to be commended in that that's what it has done in respect to advertising — taken the action in cutting it off in all media, at one fell swoop, and not permitting distribution, posters, radio, TV, newspaper advertising, versus the procedure which has been followed in other jurisdictions such as we saw in the United States on the second day of this year when it banned it on radio and on television. They failed to go all the way with tobacco. They banned only cigarettes and, thanks to a man like Senator Warren Magnusson of Washington State, who moved to stop the tobacco companies from starting to name their pipe tobaccos after their cigarettes in order to promote them in that way… Free samples started to be handed out through the mail in homes and so forth. We can probably expect a great promotion over the next few months. On January 1 of this year, the day before the ban went into effect in the United States, Philip Morris spent about $1 1/4 million on the various Bowl games, advertising their products alone.

I think that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey mentioned that, in 1962, Italy banned the advertising of cigarette smoking and other countries throughout the world, which we could name, have done the same. But, Italy, as well, has attempted to put in antismoking legislation — four bills were put before their legislature and failed to pass, but they have banned smoking in public places, such as theatres, buses, streetcars, railway waiting rooms.

My family used to be in the theatre business. I can remember when you weren't allowed to smoke in theatres. Then, the pressure was on. People wanted to smoke while they watched movies, so you began to have smoking lounges, or balconies, in which smoking was allowed.

I would hope, now that we are taking this first quite historic step this evening, that the Government will give further consideration to banning the actual smoking in some very public places. Certainly they are setting the example for the Federal Government because there was a special committee of the Commons in 1967-68 that made a study of antismoking bills and anticigarette and tobacco advertising. They recommended that, within two years, all broadcasting commercials be stopped and other advertisements be limited to brand-name statements and that, within a year, all promotional gimmicks be halted. Here we are taking very strong, positive action to stop it, in a media, at one time.

Mention is being made of the $25 million fund, which is being established at 7 per cent interest — that will raise $1 3/4 million a year. I would urge the Government to include in its antismoking campaign, not only things such as commercials on radio and advertisements in the media, but also that they give support to groups such as the Canadian Cancer Society…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Member is really not talking on the principle of this bill, as many Members previous to him haven't. We are talking about a tobacco advertising bill. I wish you would confine your remarks to that particular problem.

MR. CAMPBELL: I would conclude my remarks by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I would hope that the bill will be effective, that the reasons for it won't be by-passed as it is brought into effect, and that the Government is diligent in ensuring this in its application.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): When I walked in here this evening I found it very easy to vote for the bill. Listening to the kind of pious pap that we have just heard makes it very difficult. However, there is one thing that I think this House should do and that is to let some of the local radio stations know that we don't smoke in the Legislature. This was being discussed on one of these talk-in shows on Friday night when I was on my way home, and the

[ Page 814 ]

announcer said, "I wonder if this will stop them smoking in the Legislature?" Well, I think we should go on record as having never smoked in the Legislature — just for this guy's information.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to nemine contradicente on the following division:

YEAS — 49

Messieurs

Bill 103 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 105, An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act, 1961. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 105 contains a number of important amendments to the Credit Unions Act. Ever since the establishment of the first credit union in the Province, credit unions have multiplied and grown and, for the most part, they have prospered. In an age when large and wealthy segments of the financial community are involved, some almost exclusively in major financing projects, the credit unions in this Province have been looking after the little people in looking after their financial needs.

The first credit union, I might say, was established in 1938 with assets of $40. By 1955, Mr. Speaker, the total assets of credit unions in the Province amounted to $40 1/2 million and the membership had increased to more than 125,000. By the end of 1970, these assets had grown to $351,715,000 and there were 346,250 credit union members.

It is no accident, Mr. Speaker, that credit unions have had their greatest growth in prosperity during the term of office of this Government because we have provided a sound business climate and preserved and increased the people's confidence in the future of our Province, both of which are essential to the expansion of credit unions. Through the best credit union legislation anywhere and the effective administration of that legislation as well, this Government has, since 1952, made these institutions attractive to the people of the Province and as safe and as sound and as responsive to their members' needs as is possible. On the part of the credit unions, Mr. Speaker, they have become increasingly responsible and, for the most part, are self-governing in terms of their actions.

The bill furthers these general policies. Many of the provisions are housekeeping in nature and might be regarded as technical amendments. Some of the amendments are designed to facilitate the administration and operation of credit unions. The remainder are to give legislative authority for the next and, hopefully, final step in providing a complete system of checks and balances for the protection of the depositors and investors in credit unions.

In the category of amendments facilitating the administration and operation of these credit unions, I would draw to the honourable Members' attention, the provisions, now, that allow deposits to be made by Government bodies as well as the provisions which allow credit unions to lend money to Government bodies. My information is that the Union of B.C. Municipalities has expressed an interest in these provisions.

Another section in the bill will allow credit unions to invest in the common shares of a chartered bank. Besides providing a broader base for an investment, this provision may well be helpful in respect of the clearing of cheques through other banks.

There are present provisions relating to revolving loan plans, etc., that will also be effective, but the majority of the amendments could be classified as safeguard provisions in the bill. For instance, there are new provisions to place certain limitations on borrowings by officers and directors of credit unions and, also, some limitation on the use of borrowed money to engage in any type of transaction to which the credit union, itself, is empowered to participate. These arise as a result of experiences as to necessary restrictions on their practices.

Certain sections deal with business loans usually made to corporate bodies. It has been found that a number of credit unions and their employees do not have a sophisticated knowledge in the skills which are necessary to deal with this specialized type of transaction. This applies, particularly, in the smaller communities and the smaller credit unions. The provisions, which are put forward in this respect, will bring the Credit Union Reserve Board into the picture and allow that body to lay down some terms and conditions which will be of great help, especially to the smaller credit unions in the Province.

One of the important provisions in the bill, now, requires each credit union to have an independent, professional audit each year. This has not been the practice, heretofore. We've had an experience of one particular credit union, the Canco Credit Union. To all appearances, this was a credit union with assets of less than $90,000 and one which would, therefore, under the present rules, not require an outside professional auditor. But a defalcation occurred which resulted in the loss of some $350,000, so this is really the experience that has moved us to now provide for an independent audit in the case of each credit union.

There is a provision which will allow the Credit Union Reserve Board to give financial assistance to smaller credit unions where the engaging of professional services would be a hardship on the union. You have to look at the whole — there are guaranteed reserves and, also, the Credit Union Reserve Board is in operation, now. I'm only aware of one

[ Page 815 ]

instance where an actual loss has occurred in a credit union. Generally speaking, they have been sound and there is only one dissolution of a credit union where actual loss occurred. That was in the northern part of the Province and the amount involved was not great.

I could deal more extensively but there is a number of amendments, all of which have been discussed fully with those engaged in the inspection of the credit unions, as well as those engaged in the Credit Union Reserve Board. If there are any particular provisions on which the honourable Members require further explanation, they might so indicate and I could do that when we are in the committee stage of the bill. I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, we welcome these changes. We regret that the bill is so late coming before us, in proper democratic fashion. We have sent copies of this to leading credit union people in the various parts of the Province so that we can check their opinions and, as yet, being Monday, and the credit unions being closed, we haven't been able to check their reaction. From what we can see of it, it's good.

It rather amuses me to see the Attorney-General saying what he is saying about this legislation, that it's, as always, you know, leading Canada. I'm glad to see the changes that the Government is making in this, now, but changes that would allow this Government to put some of its free dollars, its current cash, day-to-day deposits in the credit union were made twenty years ago in other parts of Canada in other Provinces. You are certainly not leading the way here, Mr. Attorney-General. As usual, this Government has brought in, screaming and kicking, following what other cooperative Provinces did twenty years ago. Now, we…(interruption). Well, this is the record, Mr. Speaker. Other Governments in Canada were putting their free cash into the central credit union to help the credit union and the cooperative movement. Now, we are doing it, starting to do it, passing the legislation in 1971, when others did it back in 1945. Now, that's the history.

As far as this original legislation…the original credit union legislation was mothered by one M.L.A., who sat on this side of the House, Dorothy Gretchen Steeves. She brought in some of the first legislation and worked with one of the first credit unions in North Vancouver. This is part of our record. This is part of our philosophy. The Democratic Socialist philosophy doesn't promote the great corporations in the same way as it tries to promote economic democracy. The credit union movement is economic democracy in that, one, it plans on the basis of service and not profit; two, the economic base is one member, one vote, and no proxy voting.

We are pleased to see this legislation come in. A good bit of it is housekeeping. The part that will allow Provincial, Federal and municipal governments to deposit some of their free, day-to-day cash in the credit unions, we feel, is a step forward, late as it is. As the bill has just arrived — I think it came in last Wednesday, or Thursday — we have mailed it out, but we haven't had time to make comment. I would like to move adjournment, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. HARTLEY: This is our privilege. You should have brought this in much earlier. If you want to rush it through, it is our privilege to move adjournment, Mr. Speaker.

Motion negatived.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought in on Thursday evening. You don't get a copy of the bill until Friday at the earliest. Then, the credit unions were closed on Monday. The Honourable the Minister did not say that these amendments were considered along with the Credit Union League of British Columbia at the time that he moved second reading (interruption). Well, I didn't hear it. I feel that, if you are going to give…The Opposition only has the bill after it's tabled in the House. This bill is quite an involved bill. It covers…(interruption). There was only a motion to adjourn the debate on this bill (interruption). And, now, I can speak on second reading of this bill. It's pretty hard to speak with all the chattering going on, like a bunch of turkeys gobbling around here.

As I said, on a bill like this, the Opposition only had so much time and they only received the bill after the Government placed it on the Order Paper. To go over this whole bill in a day is quite an ordeal. To ask for an adjournment once, to me it's rather ridiculous when you refuse it. That's all right. How much time do you get in committee?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Member speak to the principle of Bill 105?

MR. NIMSICK: You can't speak to the principle of the bill in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right and the Speaker keeps on reminding you of it.

MR. NIMSICK: Right, you can't speak to the principle of the bill in committee.

When the credit unions were first mooted in the Legislature, back in 1939, that was the principle of credit unions. At that time, Dorothy Steeves brought forth the bill and I still have a copy of the bill that she proposed in this House. The Legislature, then, turned her down and, a year later, they brought it in and, since that time, credit unions has been on the upgrade ever since.

Credit unions have done a great deal in the Province of British Columbia and throughout the whole country in giving the ordinary person an opportunity to do things with their small amounts of money that they were never able to do before. Credit unions have done more to offset the high interest rates of loaning companies than any other single item that we can name today. This bill, in taking what the Attorney-General said, has got points in there, clean-up points in the act and improvements in the act. I am certain that credit unions have come a long way in the Province of British Columbia to reach the stage they are in today. The support they get when you think that, only about 30 years ago, credit unions were not allowed in the Province of British Columbia and today they rank in the millions of dollars that they handle of people's money…and the savings that they have built up among the little people throughout the country

[ Page 816 ]

have been enormous. I think a great deal of credit should go to those people who have dedicated a great deal of their voluntary time to make credit unions what they are today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm distressed that the Attorney-General does not display the flexibility that, in my opinion, is necessary for a House leader to have in piloting bills through this House. This bill came to us only last Thursday night. The House has been extremely cooperative in getting on with the business and to ask for an adjournment, usually, is a courteous matter between the Government and the Opposition. I'm going to ask the Attorney-General if he will consider, now, a motion to adjourn this debate to enable the group to do its work properly and we can expedite other pieces of business that are before the House. If the Attorney-General is not prepared to accept such a motion, as he has indicated, I think really it's a matter of pique rather than an attempt to get the business of the House done.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am afraid the question is out of order because we have just had a vote on that.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 105 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill 107, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 107, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think, traditionally, the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1971, has been…since the amendments relate to several bills, different bills…it has been traditional to speak to the principle of each amendment, when we are in the committee stage rather than on the second reading. I won't break with that tradition, at this time, because it would be difficult to discuss all of the principles of this bill without dealing with it, section by section. I, therefore, move it be read a second time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when the Attorney-General finds it convenient to talk about tradition and practice in this House, he speaks of such tradition and practice. When he doesn't find it convenient to speak of such courtesies, he neglects them. We've had an example of that earlier. I don't care to follow the tradition, if the Attorney-General wishes to flaunt that kind of thing in this House. I don't think the petulance of the Attorney-General is any sort of measure of this House expediting the business. On one hand, to say we must follow tradition after flaunting it and giving us a new form of closure, tonight, by an inflexible person, who is attempting to replace the House Leader…the attitude displayed by the so-called House Leader of the Government, who is incapable of extending courtesies to Members of this House.

One of the sections of this bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with the prohibition of liquor advertising in newspapers in this Province. Because that prohibition is there, there will be a great deal of debate about the bill in its total form as a Statute law amendment. While I personally will be voting for that particular section, I want to point out that the very nature of this Government's approach to the sale of alcohol will not, through the curtailment of advertising, diminish the ruthless guzzling of liquor that goes on because of the method of sale of such commodities in this Province at the hands of this Government. Large, barn-like dispensaries of beer do more harm, in terms of developing the problem of alcoholism, Mr. Speaker, than the aggressive advertising we are going to ban in the newspapers in this Province. Inflexible, rigid approaches to a Royal Commission, by this Government, and a continuance of an exclusive monopoly on the sale of beer through large, barn-like, guzzling centres create more of an atmosphere for the potential of alcoholism to start amongst young people than the advertising we are going to ban. The lack of information at the liquor stores, itself, also indicates a rather puritanical approach to the use of liquor.

Liquor, in moderation, has been spoken of since any recorded history of man. There are many references to it in the Bible, itself. It's not against the use of liquor in moderation which is the reason why I will vote for a bill to ban advertising, it is the aggressiveness used by the advertising media to force one into the area or to condition one into the area of the use of liquor. This Government cannot have the same puritanical stand on the banning of advertising of liquor as it can on the banning of tobacco because this Government has an exclusive monopoly on the marketing of alcohol and an exclusive monopoly on the method by which alcohol and spirits are marketed in this Province.

It has been suggested by others in the Royal Commission, who pointed out that the puritanical attempts by this. Government to place morality around repressive outlets, or repressive use, or repressive access to liquor products, actually creates more of the negative attitude towards the use of alcohol than the kind of advertising we are going to ban. No one can find socially acceptable the huge beer parlours that have the exclusive right to give social amenities along with the sale of beer. Beer parlours in this Province, Mr. Speaker, through their advertising, are interested only in the sale of beer and not interested in creating the kind of atmosphere where the drinking of beer happens to be a social aspect of the gathering of men and women on a social basis.

This Government can't have it both ways, as it can on the tobacco bill. Because of this Government's particular monopoly in the field of governing the outlet and use of the sale of alcohol, they stand condemned by the method, the reactionary inflexible, backward method of allowing people access, by moderation, to liquor outlets in this Province.

A corner pub, Mr. Speaker, established on a locale basis, can do more for the social wellbeing of a community than a dozen, great big beer parlours in big hotels. The only purpose in having that hotel is to push beer, not to provide lodging or comfort to travelers. A hotel license is traded with more value than the property of the hotel itself. A hotel license to sell beer is a coveted attempt at making money through the pushing of beer, rather than a sane, sensible, rational approach to having people have liquor and spirits at a mature level in their own communities.

The puritanical aspects of this Government, in terms of handling its liquor outlets has, in my opinion, created the problem that, now, puts us in the second highest per capita number of chronic alcoholics in all of Canada. Ontario only

[ Page 817 ]

measures beyond us by a small percentage point. You can't have the sanctimonious attitude that we had on the earlier bill, Mr. Speaker, because part of the root problem of creating chronic alcoholism in this Province is because of this Government's reactionary approach to allowing the outlets of liquor and beer in this Province. What's wrong with a beer garden? What's wrong with an ethnic tavern, that my friend has spoken about? What's wrong with information being available at liquor stores about the quality of wine from British Columbia and from elsewhere in the world? Why doesn't this Government print a booklet outlining how liquor and spirits can be used to enhance a meal? How it can be used in moderation within one's home? How we can teach people, within a family unit, not to be guilty or have the puritanical attitude about liquor that this Government has? Those families, that come from cultures that have a longstanding use of alcohol in that particular culture, have less per capita chronic alcoholics than the families that come on the basis of the North American ethic of guzzle, guzzle, guzzle. You can find it through the Chinese community. The incidence of alcoholism in the Chinese community in British Columbia is far less. The incidence of alcoholism in the Italian community is far less. The incidence of alcoholism, with a southern European background of people who come to the Province of British Columbia (interruption). Look, I'm talking about British Columbia and I'm talking about the drinking habits of this Province, created by this Government that, in my opinion, have contributed to the abuse of alcohol. A small comer tavern is a far greater measure of maturity in the handling of liquor than a large, hotel, barn-like dispensary. In terms of the information that is available, you produce simply a price list in the liquor store. I don't think that's enough. I think that, along with this, should be a description of the kind of wine or beer or liquor that is available, where it comes from and how it can be best handled. That's the kind of material that should be available in the liquor stores. Certainly, I'm going to vote for the banning of crass advertising but the advertising in the newspapers in this Province has not been that crass. It has been restricted, anyway. But, what we're going to do is eliminate it, entirely, so the same argument that can be used about tobacco, and the imagery around that, cannot be applied to the liquor advertising in this Province. But, nonetheless, it is pushing alcohol in a system that is incapable of handling the pushing of alcohol. The system is of this Government's making, under this Government's control and the responsibility of its side effects and its negative effects rests exclusively on this Government, Mr. Speaker. You do not have a mature liquor policy, because you have not followed the Royal Commission on the use of liquor in this Province. You cannot have it both ways.

If you go down to the skid-row areas of this Province you can find derelicts whose whole lives have been ruined because of the escape through the use of alcohol and, long since, past the use of alcohol on to bay rum. That kind of chronic alcoholic, in my opinion, is a direct result of the kind of liquor outlets and beer outlets that we have in this Province.

The responsibility of this bill is completely different from the tobacco bill, Mr. Speaker. This is the Government trying to have it both ways. I challenge them to show a more enlightened, sensible, mature method of handling the dispensing of liquor and beer in this Province. Then, they will have a case on their side for the complete ban. I say the ban should be maintained mainly because of the methods in which liquor is dispensed in this Province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill, I apply myself particularly to the section which will control or prohibit advertising for liquor in the newspapers. I think that this, again, is a very bold step on the part of the Government and one which can't do anything but good from the standpoint of consumption of liquor. The need for control over liquor sales or liquor distribution has been recognized for all of our generation. Some of us can remember when the bars were open, sawdust was on the floor and you didn't sit down to drink — you stood up as long as you could stand. Fortunately the public got completely fed up with that and they voted for prohibition. In spite of the fact that the liquor interests prevailed on us, all the time, to believe that during prohibition there was more liquor drunk than ever, this is another fallacy. The simple fact was that of all the people who tried to make hard liquor, the supply was so small it didn't amount to anything. You can laugh, my friend, but I can tell you this — the liquor just wasn't available. You are talking through your hat when you try and make fun of that statement. The only person, during my experience as an M.L.A., which goes back quite a while as most of you know… I have yet to be approached by an individual to tell me that, "I wish we had a beer parlour or a liquor parlour close to my home." The only people who have ever come to me and wanted to extend the availability of liquor has been somebody who wants to sell it. You can call them pushers, and that's just about the right word because they are in the business to make money out of selling liquor. Mind you, we all recognize that it's the abuse of liquor that causes the trouble and the person who drinks too much is the biggest enemy that the liquor industry has. But unfortunately it is a difficult thing to control.

I think a word should be said about the attitude of this Government toward liquor sales and how they have tried to apply moderation. In 1952, when this Government was elected, there were 54 beer parlours in the city of Vancouver and they were all clustered in the city centre and, no matter how much money you had, you couldn't get a beer parlour outside of that area. Now, I would venture to say, you can buy beer in 154 places in the city of Vancouver. Nearly every cafe that wants to apply for a license, if they have a good record from the standpoint of character, and they have a place which lives up to the health laws, they can pretty near get a permit to sell beer and wine. I don't say that it's the best thing in the world that ever happened but it is a way of trying to create moderation by this Government. I think the self-serve liquor store has, again, served a purpose, in spite of the fact that many people who call themselves "dries" are against it, because they think it increases sales. Nevertheless, the objective has been to try to create moderation. I think that the Government and the people in charge of the Liquor Control Board are to be highly commended for trying to do something along these lines and, I think, they have been largely successful. Anyway you put it, Mr. Speaker, if you're going to stop advertising, you're going to stop sales. As I've said before, this is a bold move on the part of the Government. It's one which the Government should be highly commended for. I support it and I hope everybody in this House Will Support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

[ Page 818 ]

MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill with a number of principles. I notice that, despite the fact that we had Bill 47 on the Order Paper, with a number of amendments to the Public Schools Act, we still have amendments to the Public Schools Act in this particular bill, doing a number of things, referring to the Council of Public Instruction.

I notice a principle here with regard to legislation, that was passed last year, under which certain professional corporations were going to be allowed to be formed, legally, and would, then, be entitled to a certain tax status. Now, this particular amendment is merely going to legalize something that the Premier announced, was going to happen some months ago, when he disallowed the professional corporations to utilize their corporation status to file a certain type of tax return. This is not the first time in this Session that I have had occasion to draw attention to the fact that any Government that talks about people obeying the law…this Government continually tells people that no matter what the law says, that law is to be ignored. That's what this particular amendment is going to do, regarding the Professional Corporations Act. We passed a law, a year ago, and we were told, when we passed that law, that it would give professionals, organized into corporations, certain income tax standing. Then, the Minister of Finance says, "That's not what it means. Ignore it, it's not the law that's going to be applied. We're going to correct it and change it at the next Session."

As I say, it's not the first this Session, it's not the first time in past Sessions that I've had to get up to try to get home to you people that, if you want the young people of this Province to obey the law, it's time the Government itself started obeying the law. How you expect to give leadership when, year after year, you do this kind of thing, I don't know? Certainly when I talk about obeying the law to groups in my constituency, or anywhere in the Province, I'm told about the Minister of Rehabilitation, who breaks the law. I'm told about the Premier of the Province, who breaks the law and ignores the law and tells other people to ignore the law. If it's good enough for Cabinet Ministers and the Premier of the Province, then, why is it we must condemn the young people?

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Member withdraw that I have ever advocated, either by action or otherwise, anybody breaking the law. That's not my purpose. I demand that that statement be withdrawn.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, I want the Minister to tell me whether or not, when he supports violence in the streets, he is supporting the law? You said the best television programme you ever saw was when people were beating up other people in the streets of New York. Well, I think if the Minister wants to deny that he said it was the best television show he ever saw… I cast no reflection on the Minister…

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't talking about gang busters.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will go to another principle in this act (interruption). Oh, certainly, I withdraw, if the Minister is touchy and wants to repudiate any statements, I'll repudiate them with him (interruption).

Absolutely. The Minister made the statement, unconditionally. I withdraw it, unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, there is another principle in this bill in regards to advertising. I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said with regard to the fuddy-duddy application of the liquor laws that have been part of life in British Columbia for so many years. I agree you can't legislate perfection. Any Government that sets out to legislate perfection is heading for a great deal of trouble. The people who support this particular principle with regard to liquor advertising and think that this is going to dispose of all of the fancy ads in the magazines are completely unrealistic, because it won't do that. I agree that, within the present legislation in this Province, the liquor advertising is very limited, limited to the mere reproduction of a bottle and sign underneath saying that this is not put in by the Liquor Control Board.

I'm supporting this legislation, as I supported the last legislation, as a base from which to begin attacking and eliminating that whole field of erroneous, misleading, subliminal advertising that is part of what is wrong with this sick society, today.That's the reason I am supporting this particular piece of legislation, because this is a base for an attack on all those corrupting forces that have been part of the advertising media all over North America. This is the base. This is why I am supporting it, for that very reason. It's not just with cigarettes and it's not just with liquor, that this kind of misleading, status-symbol building advertising has been so common. The whole field of the North American endeavour has been twisted and warped, through the exaggeration of the Madison Avenue madness, to the subliminal advertising that has done so much to create the wrong attitudes in our society, the wrong objectives, for the wrong reasons. On that basis, I have no compunction about supporting this particular legislation. The Madison Avenue boys have themselves to blame because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For too many years they've had freedom of action to direct and control and push society in North America in completely wrong ways and establish completely wrong standards (interruption). Somebody says, "Hogwash." You can say "Hogwash" but I can point out to you ad, after ad, after ad, in almost every field of endeavour in North America, where the attitude displayed in that advertising was completely wrong, very often untrue, and very often didn't give a true picture of what was to be purchased.

I say to you that the most successful advertising in the press of British Columbia, today, are those ads that are put in by Simpson-Sears, Woodwards, Hudson's Bay, T. Eaton, Co. — $1.49 Day — nothing but black and white print. Now, you go to these stores the day after those ads are in the paper and try to get inside the door. A straight record of the facts — so many of this particular goods for sale, at this price, and the crowds flock there. Advertising doesn't have to be the costly, expensive, misleading thing it has come to be in our society. As I said at the beginning, I am supporting this bill, this principle, as I supported the other principle because, once you start up this road of controlling that kind of advertising, then, believe me, you are starting up the road I want you to go. I want an end to that kind of misleading, status-building, false advertising that is epitomizing so much of North American society.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

[ Page 819 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, 1, too, would like to address myself to a couple of sections in this bill, the first being the amendments to the Professional Corporations Act. I think it is important that we have taken this opportunity to debate the principle of this Statute amendment bill so that perhaps the Attorney-General can reconsider and bring in some amendments to what he has. He is, in effect, destroying the Professional Corporations Act, or setting it to one side, for a period of time, and it's retroactive. I ask the Honourable the Attorney-General to consider what he's going to do with those corporations that are in existence today? Are they still in existence? Are they viable corporations or are they not? What about those professionals who have so adjusted their affairs that they are now in the hands of professional corporations and the corporation is a nullity, in effect, suspended, incapable of holding the assets it might hold and performing the responsibilities which it must perform? Does the Minister expect that these things reverse themselves automatically?

I think that the passage of the Professional Corporations Act and the unfortunate position that the Government found itself in, following the passing of an Order-in-Council, which was unconstitutional, to say the least, has put the Government in a position of exercising this retroactive legislation, again. It's the only Government in Canada that abuses the legislation and the Legislature, as this one does. Anything we do wrong, we can always clean it up, because we will pass some retroactive legislation in the next year. Fear not to make a mistake, but fear not to redress the wrongs that may be done to those who have acted upon legislation which was passed in this Province a year ago, or even some years ago. I'm opposed to that principle. I'm opposed to that disregard of the function of this Assembly and of the laws that it passes.

Turning to this much discussed amendment to the Government Liquor Act, I agree with what the Honourable Leader of the Opposition said about what we should be doing to the Liquor Act at the Session, following the recommendations of a very expensive commission that we had into this subject. You know, Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Age of Majority Act, a year ago, it was hailed as a wonderful step forward. I'll tell you that most of the 19-year-olds with whom I have spoken since that act was passed have found it to be nothing more than a trap. They were shocked and surprised to find that adults in this Province were allowed to go and associate one with the other in what we commonly call beer parlours and we extended this right to 19-year-olds.

We debated in this House this evening an act with regard to certain advertising practices and much was said about the dangers to the youth of this country, through advertising practices the substance of which might be harmful. Yet, this same Government allows the youth to go into establishments, which we call beer parlours, which are only swill parlours, sells them booze from the Government liquor store by the bottle and makes a handsome profit at it and, then, has the gall to come in and bring in an act, which suggests that, somehow or other, we are going to control this by a change in advertising policy.

This legislation is incompetent of a Government and I'm surprised that the Government would seriously put this forward at this time in view of all of the other things that they do. To take one ad, dealing with liquor, out of one newspaper, or all the newspapers, is not going to reduce one bottle of what will be dispensed across the counters of the Government liquor stores in this Province. Certainly if any money is saved by cutting out this advertising, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it will not be passed on to the customers of those Government liquor stores. No change (interruption). Well, we have an expert and I hope the expert will stand up and tell us about the prices of liquor elsewhere in Canada and tell us how this particular bill is going to do anything which, in any way, will reduce the consumption of alcoholic beverages in this Province. I hope that, at the same time, she'll take the time, however, to show us the effect that it will have by taking away the opportunity of educating people in the proper use of the substances which this Government sells in its liquor stores, the proper enjoyment of those substances upon which this Government depends so much for its revenue.

This is the kind of thing we should be encouraging — either that or stop selling it. If it is so harmful we shouldn't talk about it, then, we shouldn't be selling it. But, that's a step that the Government will not take.

Mr. Speaker, the whole cynicism of this Government action comes full turn when we look at section 1 I of this bill, because we have been here, tonight, debating the impact of cigarette advertising on our young, we are talking about the impact of alcohol advertising on our young and what are we doing? We are repealing the Poolrooms Act. Right here, we are repealing the Poolrooms Act. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the act presently provides that no youth — that's a person under 18 — shall be permitted by an owner or other person to be or remain in a poolroom or to play pool or any other game therein — and we are going to repeal this act? We're going to expose the youth of this Province to poolrooms? We're going to keep them away from cigarette advertising. We're going to keep them away from liquor advertising. But, we're going to throw the poolrooms wide open to the youth of this Province.

That's the kind of logic that this Government offers us in this bill. This is a matter of principle with this Government. I ask you, here we are, taking away from the youth of this Province the protection of a bill that has stood on the Statute Books of this Province, at least, since 1948, and we're taking away this protection. I think that, surely you must prove how shallow all the Government's moves tonight have been and how shallow, in particular, their suggestion is that we should interfere with the advertising of liquor under the Liquor Act, without doing anything really positive for the dispensation of beer, wine and alcohol in this Province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself, also, to section 6. I had originally planned on voting against this section, because I have expressed, in the past, my dissatisfaction with the fact that television stations and radio stations in this Province are not allowed to advertise liquor for sale and that, as a result, the Province was losing approximately half a million dollars a year in radio and television advertising. On closer scrutiny of the section, though, I find that I probably will have to vote both for and against it, because I do support the extension of the selling of liquor to commercial aircraft. I don't know who is going to separate the two for me and make it possible to go one way or the other. As I say perhaps the easiest way would be to vote both for and against it and cover both angles that way.

With respect to the restriction, or I should say the banning of the advertising of liquor, Mr. Speaker, I don't

[ Page 820 ]

think it's, in any way, going to lessen the consumption of liquor. On the other hand, I say, just by a guess, and I don't think I'm too far from wrong, or from right, I should say that it will probably cost the advertising media of this Province something between $2 and $3 million a year in revenue. In view of the fact that one of the major magazines is now being printed in the city of Vancouver, I wonder what it will do to their contract…for the printing for the entire Northwest, I believe. I'm concerned about how many people will lose their employment as a result of this legislation and, especially in view of the fact that I don't believe it's going to alter the drinking habits of the people of this Province. I think the only effect that liquor advertising will have on most people is to get them to change their brand. It's not going to get them to start drinking because they saw an ad. It might change their brand to another brand because of an ad. I don't think any youngster is going to say, "I saw it advertised and I am going to try it." I think they are going to try it because they saw it used at home and, I think, that this is where it should be used. This is where they should learn to use it, and use it properly, in the home.

Mr. Speaker, just because some people do not have the character to use liquor properly, you should not find fault with other people who can use it properly, in my opinion, of our being able to be master of liquor and not letting liquor be master of you. If you can do that, then, liquor is an accepted part of our social life. Whether we want to accept it or not, we are going to be living with it for the rest of our lives. It's something that is accepted throughout the world and it's something that can be used properly without any harm to anyone.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that even if the ads' power is completely banned, as they are to be, and I know this bill will receive wide support in the House, I am quite aware of that, the liquor sales will still go up, year after year, and the Government will go on making more and more money, year after year. I'm happy about that but I think it's wrong for the Government to say to the manufacturers, to the distillers and to the brewers, "You go ahead and make it and we'll sell it for you, but don't let anybody know we have it." Just like the old idea, which we still have in force, of using the two-inch-high letters to advertise licensed premises. In other words, you can whisper on the corners, "We sell it here," but you can't advertise it in two-foot-high letters. That's wrong. There is nothing wrong or immoral about selling liquor and we shouldn't try to make it look as such. There were more abuses…(interruption).

It's not pushing it. There were more abuses in the use of liquor during prohibition than there are now. I know it because I saw them myself. There were more drunks on the street and more fights and more people dying from drinking rotgut, than, there are now. There was no advertising and, if you want to look at advertising and what it does, look at the drug situation. There is no advertising of drugs, the hard drugs or the soft drugs, but still the use of them is growing and growing. It doesn't require advertising to make them used.

There's one thing, Mr. Speaker, that could have been done, that could have been done successfully. It would not have deprived the advertising media of this Province of their revenue. It would have accomplished perhaps much more than restricting it altogether, and that is to require the advertisers to devote half of their ad space to preaching temperance, advocating temperance. They could advertise products and then have half the ad advocating temperance.

So, in that way you are telling them that it is there…and, let's face it, it is there. The Government is selling it for them. Let's not fool ourselves about that. So, we should be telling them, "Don't abuse it, use it carefully and, then, you'll be all right." I think if the Government had done that instead of restricting it altogether it might have been much better, it might have increased the advertising revenue of the media of this Province and would not have hurt anyone.

I am still curious to know, though, how we're going to separate the fact that one part of this section recommends or advocates something I like and the other part of it gets into something I don't like. I don't know how I'm going to separate the two.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, I'm going to deal with section 6. It's an entirely different subject…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the Member to deal with the bill and not the section.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, everybody else remarked about section 6.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, but the Member can refer to a principle of the bill.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, the principle of the bill is a hodge-podge. It's an entirely different question in regards to liquor as to what it is in regards to cigarettes. Cigarettes are a health problem and have no food value. I think we have to be realistic about the question of liquor. Nobody ever said that beer or wine wasn't a food product and many of the doctors will recommend it to you, and alcohol, too. I must say this much for the liquor industry, their advertising has been pretty conservative advertising in the Province of British Columbia. They haven't mislead in their advertising, like the advertising that has been carried on with cigarettes. I'll say that much.

As long as man has been on this earth, there has been wine and beer and alcohol. You can be a slave to anything. It's not the drinking of beer or wine or alcohol, it's the abuse of the product that has caused some of the troubles throughout the country. When I listen to this and see this on the Order Paper, it makes me think of the saying, "Here's to success to temperance and down with the liquor." I think we're being a little hypocritical when we are talking about banning the limited advertising that is on the Order Paper at the present time and, according to the Liquor Act, that we've got before us today. I don't think it's wrong for them to advertise beer against liquor. If more people drank beer or wine there would be less effects of alcohol on the people. I don't see any reason they shouldn't be allowed to advertise.

I don't think we are accomplishing anything by banning the advertising of liquor and I can't be a hypocrite and support legislation like this. When you're working in the mine, or when you're working in the smelter and all the gasses and the smoke you've got to breathe in all day, nobody starts to ban those things. When they come out of those places where they work, and especially in the summertime, there's nothing more refreshing than a glass of beer. Nothing more refreshing than a glass of beer. If these workers

[ Page 821 ]

can't go home and sit down and have a bottle of beer…if we're going to try and legislate people, to say that they can't have a bottle of beer, I think we're getting pretty far out. This is the first step. You're just moving in this direction. It's the shades of the past coming back. Just because we've got a few Cabinet Ministers who are teetotalers, they want to impose, they are trying to impose this on the rest of the people of the country. You've tried it before. I remember when prohibition was on, Mr. Speaker, I…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, the Honourable Member is not speaking to the principle of this particular section when talking in terms of prohibition, which has nothing to do with the principle of this bill.

MR. NIMSICK: They talked about prohibition. They said, back in the prohibition days, that there was more drinking than in any other time.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm just ordering the Member to not bring up the subject of prohibition because it's not in the bill.

MR. NIMSICK: But this is the first step towards prohibition. They'd like to have prohibition.

MR. SPEAKER: But it's not in the bill.

MR. NIMSICK: …the aim of a bill like this. This is prohibition of advertising, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The prohibition of advertising and liquor are two different things.

MR. NIMSICK: This is prohibition of advertising.

MR. SPEAKER: Confine your remarks then.

MR. NIMSICK: I don't see any reason why you can't talk about prohibition of advertising.

MR. SPEAKER: Only because I am ordering you not to.

MR. NIMSICK: Prohibition of advertising?

MR. SPEAKER: Prohibition of liquor.

MR. NIMSICK: I'll talk about the prohibition of liquor advertising.

MR. SPEAKER: That's better. That will be fine.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, that's what I'm talking about — the prohibition of liquor advertising.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we start to legislate in cases like this, they have tried it before and it was really highly unsuccessful. We've got a monopoly on the liquor business in the Province of British Columbia. If you want to control the manufacturer, then, let's take over the manufacture of wines and beer and liquor and place that under the Crown, too. I wouldn't be opposed to that. I don't think that we are being realistic and I think it's discriminatory legislation that we're trying to pull off on one section of society against another. We could prohibit the advertising of coffee. Coffee, many times, has been talked about being bad for your health. Yet we allow all kinds of advertising for coffee, for aspirins, for soap, for everything else. I say that when we're talking about…(interruption). Well, you've got soap operas, all over the place. You've got all sorts of advertising and misleading advertising that is going on throughout the country, advertising that is more injurious to people than this type of advertising. I think that we're just trying to be a little bit hypocritical when we stop this advertising.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Honourable Members, in the Statute Law Amendment Act, there are a variety of principles always contained in it. I recommend to Members that probably the preferable place to discuss most of these individual items would be during the committee stage rather than in the second reading of the bill. I don't intend to confine the remarks, only to make a recommendation to the honourable Members that they keep their remarks to a minimum on the second reading of the bill because, it really, has a variety of principles that are most difficult to discuss. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with you and I'm going to stick to the general principles of this bill. With all respect, I thought the Member from Kootenay was way off the mark in the principle of the Bill, talking about liquor advertising. It has nothing at all to do with the Glendale Lodge Society. The Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound was a little closer when he talked about the abolition of the Poolrooms Act, but so far nobody has mentioned the Bridge River water licenses. Here we are…

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment. I don't know whether the honourable Member is being facetious with the Chair or not, but I simply say this, because of the number of principles that are in this bill they could probably be better discussed during the committee stage rather than during the second reading of a variety of principles. This is the only thing that I have said.

MR. McGEER: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. I have always understood that the legislative process was to deal with the general principle of the bill on second reading. I just think it's most unfortunate that Members are ever placed in a position of trying to vote for or against something which includes Bridge River water licenses, Canadian firefighters, motor-vehicle amendments, strata titles, public utilities, the Poolrooms Act, the National Housing Act and mortgage…I just wonder about the title of this act, at all, and whether anything in front of a sensible legislative assembly should come forward in this form…whether it's really good legislation, Mr. Speaker. You know, I don't know about the legislative counsel that drafts this kind of thing but I certainly would not like to give a lecture to any first-year law class on this kind of legislation. I wonder whether it's wise, at all, to come rushing through in the dying days of the Session with this kind of a mixed bag of careless legislation.

We have a system, well established through British parliamentary tradition, where bills can be introduced and read a first time, and then a general, single principle discussed in second reading and a bill referred to committee. In most sophisticated Houses, Mr. Speaker, these get referred to specialized committees, where the public can come and discuss — if it happens to deal with liquor advertising, then,

[ Page 822 ]

we can hear from the various media, we can hear from people who have a particular interest, like the Women's Christian Temperance Union — and really do a nice job on legislation. But, here, towards the dying days of the Session, bills are brought through so quickly that we can't even adjourn them for a day, while we find out from people who are particularly interested what the wrinkles of a particular act might be.

Then, two or three days before the end of the Session, we get Bridge River water licenses mixed with poolrooms and liquor advertising and we're expected to vote for or against some general principle. I think this should be the Legislative Dementia Act, Mr. Speaker, because it shows, quite literally, the lowest common denominator that legislative draftsmanship can possibly reach. I think that the Attorney-General, who sponsored this legislation, should hang his head in shame. I think the legislative counsel, who drew it up, should resign. I don't think that this kind of garbage should ever appear before a serious legislative assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. BRUCH: The last speaker gave the best indication of why he should resign from this House by his lack of knowledge of the necessity for this type of legislation.

In regards, Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound, prohibition didn't work and would, of course, be ridiculous in this day and age. The Government is in the liquor business of necessity, but we are dealing with a principle of promotion and advertising. Again, I have reservations as to the effectiveness of a Provincial ban on advertising. However, we must, along with this legislation, urge the Federal Government to ban all advertising of alcoholic beverages. Let the liquor firms promote one brand over the other by quality of product and not by social promotion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation.

MR. GAGLARDI: In this particular bill, there are many principles that can be discussed. There are some sections of the bill that, I believe, are more prominent and more important to the public than are others. One part of it deals especially with the advertising of a product that I believe there is much concern about in the Nation, in fact, all over the world.

One of the great, serious problems in the whole of the world today is alcohol. I believe that a society, if it is going to be governed, if it's going to be controlled and if it's going to be sufficiently responsible for its actions, there are certain measures that it must, of necessity, face. There has been a time when certain nations have gone so far as to prohibit the use of certain commodities, particularly alcohol. It has proven, in these cases, the banning of alcohol to make it completely prohibitive, has not been a successful way of dealing with a situation.

If this problem were not a serious problem, if we were dealing with it on a sort of casual basis and on a jocular basis like the Member from Cranbrook dealt with it, then, maybe it shouldn't be touched at all. When someone starts to realize that, according to the statistics in the latest advertisement that I have seen in Look magazine, 673 people every week die on American highways, not because of drinking, not because of automobiles, but because one out of every 50 operators of a vehicle on the American highways is drunk.

That's alcohol. Advertising of a commodity that is detrimental to society. Over 500,000, I believe it is, a year in the United States of America are crippled for life. Think of the hundreds and thousands of children, boys and girls, who are injured from this type of a situation.

It's all right for you to talk in those terms but I'm suggesting to you this is a problem and it's far more serious than the stupid, insane sort of remarks that I'm hearing from the other side of the House. This is a very serious problem to me, so serious the problem is this, my friend, that a man in this Province only had one son and that son is driving on a highway and he's killed by a drunken driver. One son, and you mean to tell me that we, as leaders in this Nation and in this community and in this Province shouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to endeavour to do everything we possibly can to stop the pressure of the pusher? If people want to indulge, it is entirely up to them. It's a free country.

I don't think that we should endeavour to use our influence, in any way, to influence people to use anything that's detrimental or injurious to the life of an individual.

Go down to any part of the city of Vancouver, that is, the slums of Vancouver, and see the result of the usage of this particular commodity. It is often stated, on the floor of this House, that there are great, huge profits made to the Government. That's right — huge profits. I want to declare, categorically, on the floor of this House, that there is no profit ever made out of liquor. No profit is ever made out of liquor. For every dollar of supposed profit that comes in, there are ten dollars to be spent in remedying the disaster of exactly what takes place (interruption). Yes, that's right. The life of one individual, as far as I'm concerned, is worth more than all the $60 millions, or $70 millions, or $100 million or a billion that could be brought in. In the State of California, they studied the situation and followed it through and found that…

MR. SPEAKER: I think the honourable the Minister is wandering far away from section 6 of the bill.

MR. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to bring out, and I may be out of order, what I am trying to bring out is that the pushing of this kind of a commodity certainly cannot be the sensible result of Legislatures. I believe that the banning of it is a sensible thing, that is, the banning of the pushing of it. Certainly this is not prohibition in any way. This is endeavouring to, at least, show a little bit of leadership to the Nation, saying that, "if you want to drink that's your business but, as far as we're concerned, we don't want to see the commodity pushed."

We're not interested in that kind of profit in this department of which I happen to be the Minister. When you pick up children whose bodies have been mutilated and injured and some of them smashed because of the usage of this commodity — that's right the abuse of it — and you want us to push it — that's what your asking us to do — you're trying to class it in the same class as coffee. Listen, speeding on a highway may be one thing…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR.GAGLARDI: …but I believe that the usage of this commodity, incidentally, is (me of the most dangerous killers on any highway that anybody could ever indulge in. All I'm suggesting is that, as far as I am concerned, I believe that any advertising that bans or that endeavours to slow down the

[ Page 823 ]

usage of this commodity is good legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the principle that we have been discussing this evening. The last speaker, Mr. Speaker, has used pretty strong language to condemn the advertising of this particular product. "Such a stupid and…" suggesting that the Member from Kootenay was frivolous, which, of course he never is and certainly wasn't tonight and neither are these honourable gentlemen whom the government appointed as the commissioners — the judge, the archbishop and that rarest of natural phenomenon, a teetotalling senator. They dealt, specifically with what we're talking about, here, tonight, and they were not frivolous, neither were they stupid. They have dealt with it on pages 16 to 18 and they say that the artificial distinction between the advertising being allowed only in the newspapers should be abolished. They point out the rules of sane and sensible advertising on page 18. I won't read them all out but they are all there — ethical advertising. These are men and their suggestions are those of moderation and temperance, not what Mark Twain called — and I have a little quote from him, let me read it. "Intemperant temperance injures the cause of temperance, while temperate temperance helps it in its fight against intemperant intemperance." Mr. Premier, I think that you, in this case, are engaging in intemperant temperance and that is not the road to moderation or real temperance in this field. The Member who has just taken his seat says that this is one of the greatest evils… I don't know. You pick up, for example, the Gideon Bible in the hotel room and you turn to Timothy 1, "Drink no longer water but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake." From the New Testament. Are we now to ban the Gideon Bibles out of the hotel rooms? (Laughter.) Are we to say that the Good Book is pushing this particular product which is so bad. In Psalms, "Wine maketh glad the heart of man." From the Good Book. Is that unfair advertising? Is that kind of statement to be banned in the Province of British Columbia? Is that the kind of Mrs. Grundy Province that we are likely to become? We ask our farmers to produce grapes so that we have them in our mix and not just the California grape. We produce local wines, and some of them are very good wines, and then we say we will be silent about this. We'll let ignorance and silence speak for those local industries. Why? And let people go down to the South or hear on the television from across the line how the California and Washington wines are so great. Why are we afraid of our own products that we insist upon promoting them by ignorance of their very existence?

I hope there will be a free vote on this matter, because I say that…and, with respect, I disagree with my friend down here. I hope that it will be a real free vote of all the Parties on this question.

I say, Mr. Premier, that you're flouting the recommendations of your own Royal Commission. Flouting them — and I say that you're promoting darkness. In an area where you've got no right to promote darkness, you're pulling down the curtain of silence and ignorance when the Liquor Control Board…you are not implementing the rest of these regulations…the Liquor Control Board, without open hearings, without the appeal provisions that are being set up there, has the power to take any brand of any liquor, or any wine, or any beer, off thu shelves — the powers of a despot, the powers of a Grand Lama. No hearing, no appeal, if they dislike you, you speak out of turn, you don't do the right thing, you don't make the right contribution, your brands are just taken off the shelves and that's the end of it. And, on that kind of a situation, you add to it by saying, "Let there be no publicity. Let the people of the Province not even know what our products are." I say you're fortifying the depotism, which you are allowing to continue in the Liquor Control Board. I think that, disagreeing with my friend right here, that we would say, in the case of labour, that informational picketing is a right that ought to be protected, even though that information may be opinions, one-sided opinion, in some cases, but it's a kind of free speech. You suppress the dissemination of knowledge with very great care. Do it with cigarettes, by all means, because they are deleterious to human health but not otherwise. Let there be light. That's why, with respect, I disagree with my friend and my friends. Let there be light. Don't pull down the curtain of silence and ignorance in this field.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

MR. BENNETT: I don't think any Member in the House knows Judge Morrow as well as I do. I had the pleasure of sitting with him in the Legislature on the Coalition side and the statement that was made by the Member tonight that he opposes this bill, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is completely untrue. In the daily press the other day, he was asked about this bill. In the press — no matter what is in the report — in the press he said he was not opposed to this bill, but he didn't think the Government would go for prohibition of advertising, on a full basis and, therefore, they settled on this basis. But, he was not opposed to this bill. In other words, the chairman of the Royal Commission is not opposed to the prohibition of the pushers of advertising for liquor. That's what he said the other day, after this bill was out. I just wanted the House to know the true facts regarding the chairman, that's all.

You can quote the Bible as much as you like but, also, if you want to be fair, you have to quote the other side, as well, which says, "Look not on the wine, when it is red," Mr. Speaker. If you can quote the Scriptures, so can I. So can I. I want to say this, that all the arguments that we used on another bill tonight, are just more powerful for this bill, more powerful. Because the power of advertising is the power of the pushers. They can make, as the Leader of the Opposition said tonight, men of distinction. That was not said regarding tobacco, that was said regarding liquor. That's what their ad said…men of distinction. In other words, you were not a man at all, unless you drank liquor. And so with a carefully planned advertising campaign, more and more liquor increasing in consumption tremendously. More and more people are drinking more and more and they are drinking it because of this advertising campaign.

For people to say that advertising has no effect is ridiculous in the extreme. I know, as a merchant, that advertising is a tremendous force. If you don't advertise your cars, my friend, you sell none. If General Motors stopped advertising Chevrolet, and surely it's the greatest selling car in the world, but if they stopped advertising Chevrolet for two or three years, their sales would go down 50 per cent and they know it. Wrigley's Gum stopped advertising just for two years and their sales went down 42 per cent. The power of advertising is terrific and the price of advertising we have today is…(interruption).

[ Page 824 ]

That's right. That's a good word, Mr. Leader. I'll call you Mr. Leader tonight because you're showing some leadership in this House. I want to say that. I want to tell you that. I want to tell you that your Scottish ancestors who raised you on the shorter catechism are proud of you tonight, proud of you tonight. And so am 1. I've been in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I've differed with the Member from Cowichan-Malahat on many issues but there's many issues on the questions of character and the questions of high principle — I haven't disagreed — we have been in agreement. In fact, we seem to have an affinity that no two other Members in this House have. Isn't that right? That's right. Oh, we have no affinity with you, my friend. You're the type of a man that those ads say "men of distinction." Yes, dead drunk, in the gutter…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must ask the Premier to withdraw.

MR. BENNETT: I withdraw, I withdraw. His record this year has been shocking every day, despicable and I withdraw (laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You must get back to the bill.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question of advertising…the power of advertising…advertising is such a high science today that you can get people to do almost anything with advertising (interruption). That's right (laughter). I want to tell you that…my friend, I always play the truth to the hilt. So, I say, Mr. Speaker, the power of advertising, the subtle advertising hangs over the youth of this Province, over the youth of this Nation, over the youth of this world. No wonder they look on people with double standards, no wonder. No wonder…We say don't touch drugs and then they see you dead drunk with liquor. The great killer, the real great killer today is liquor.

We are not advocating prohibition but we are advocating prohibition of the pushers. It's the pushers that are dangerous because of the high price of the science of advertising that can create that demand. We are not only voting tonight for our people here, and for the youth, but the youth unborn, Mr. Speaker, and I have no hesitation at all in supporting this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the reason we have this chance in second reading to deal with even this type of bill is so that, in speaking on various things that occur in this bill, we have a chance for the Attorney-General to have time for sober reflection. I point out that we are going to have a problem in the section that has certainly enticed most of us to discuss it. One of the problems is this, who is going to protect the maiden who is locked up in the powder shed, if you've got no more advertising of beer, or the maiden who is tied down on the railroad tracks? We've got used to those ads and they were quite amusing. They are going to be banned certainly, over on this side of the border. It's going to be quite a problem.

You know, the Minister of Highways confuses the purpose of this bill. It is not to do with prohibition of drinking. It is to do with discouraging the advertising of liquor. I've got to commend the Minister. I remember one time, quite a long time ago, now, when he saved a life that was being taken by liquor. There was a poor, sad drunk staggered into a swimming pool and, at 5 o'clock in the morning, the Minister came to his rescue. That, I think, was a great example of his belief in protecting those who have gone astray. But, he thinks that banning advertising, banning publicity in regard to liquor, is somehow going to solve the problem of drinking. It isn't — in no way. What it will do, once again, is cut down on the right of people to know what is being sold.

Apply the principle, as I did earlier, when we were talking about tobacco, you may have wondered, then, why I mentioned gasoline. Gasoline causes pollution of the atmosphere and that harms people but it's, also, a necessity, commercially, in our world today. Many people will argue that liquor is not a necessity and I would say it isn't a necessity but it also isn't per se an evil. It is only an evil in the hands of those who are weak in the use of it. That doesn't make it evil per se. A good example of harm is where an automobile is not properly guarded in regard to the fumes or the oil that spews out because the exhaust system is faulty or the automobile engine is faulty. You don't ban all automobiles because of that. You don't ban automobile advertising because of that.

What you have to do is educate people in the use of drink. You have to educate people, right from the time they are in school, about the evils of alcohol. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, it's important that you remember that those families where they treat alcohol intelligently, with a certain amount of maturity in its use, have the least trouble with alcohol. But I have observed that those puritanical families, often closest to the idea of some churches that liquor itself is a sin and drinking liquor is a sin, often, the children, who are raised in that environment end up drinking too much and running away from the strictness of their home and their parents. Well, that's the kind of faulty advertising that occurs in some places, where they, actually, psychologically drive children into the excess of drinking.

This Government believes that it's OK to sell liquor. They believe it's OK for anyone over a certain age to have liquor. On the other hand, they are trying to take the position that they can sell it without advertising, without letting the people know the products that are available. I think that's a mistake because it is not going to alter anything but the ignorance of people. It's going to make them more ignorant of what is available in quality and grade and location of various alcoholic beverages. How would you know, for example, what is a good wine that you can buy from France? The Minister of Rehabilitation may not care but, certainly it makes a difference to people who do care. It means that you are not educating people to the kind and quality of beverages that are available. I'm going to argue that you have pushed the principle too far, if you say ban all advertising on liquor. It is not in the same category as tobacco, it does have some redeeming features to it and those qualities that are bad are not the fault of the liquor any more than the danger of the automobile is necessarily caused by the automobile, but by the man behind the wheel. I, therefore, suggest that this principle has gone too far in the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

[ Page 825 ]

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, this subject has ranged through a far range and your suggestion of it being discussed more adequately at another time would certainly make sense. I find, however, the impossibility of this if the Attorney-General insists in including what, I think, is an extremely important principle, but certainly a principle which has been debated on most this evening…if it is included in an overall section where it can't be isolated. He has it included with many other subjects that are of less concern and certainly which many of the people might be in favour of. I hope that the Attorney-General would be willing, on something as important as this, to isolate it out into a section, subsection 6 (a) or (b) so that it could be voted on as a subsection, individually, and discussed as such. If so, Mr. Speaker, I would be quite willing to refrain and discuss it at that time, as it's going to remain in that same general principle…I hope that the Attorney-General isn't just trying to slide it through in an overall, cover through…(interruption). I would be very pleased to, then, Mr. Speaker.

I'm disturbed by some of the references tonight here in the House. I never thought that an industry, and I do speak tonight representing a portion of the industry, the industry would be labelled with a name like pusher. I find and I'm sorry that the Premier is not here this evening. I think that the use of this word for an industry that has endeavoured to take up its responsibilities in this Province in this way, as it has, living within the law, to be suddenly labelled with a name, which is given, I think, with an intent which is much beyond the use of the word "pusher " to suggest that, within the limited form of advertising, which has been given under the law and entitled under the law of British Columbia, in which you are allowed to show the label and give descriptive phrases which cover it, only honestly, to call the industry a pusher, I think, is an insult to the industry itself…certainly, given the right to do business in the Province of British Columbia and this right exists and has been given as part of the Government Liquor Control Act.

I'm speaking, now, on behalf of all the breweries, wineries, and distilleries that are in the Province, that operate and employ people and utilize products and have built up products. I never heard the word "pusher" used, Mr. Speaker, when they were developing the grape industry in the Okanagan, or the berry industry down here on the Island. I never heard the word "pusher" used when they were encouraging industry to come to this Province and build the distillery that happens to sit at the moment in West Vancouver. I've never heard the word "pusher" used for the people who are doing business, when we do business with the Liquor Control Board. I am disturbed, Mr. Speaker, to find us suddenly labelled as though we were going out and endeavouring to do a terrible job of bringing all the young people into the utilization of liquor. If that is the case, why do we have laws that prohibit the use of liquor beneath the age of 18 and why aren't we enforcing them, then? If it's the young people that have been taken in, where is the enforcements against the use of alcohol under the age of 18? I point out that there is a tremendous difference. To hear the Minister of Rehabilitation…everyone is opposed to the abuse of alcohol. Every company that I've ever talked to has always talked about abuse and the banning of abuse. To suggest that alcohol kills but a car doesn't is to suggest that one is more dangerous than the other. There are just as many examples, Mr. Minister, of a person getting behind the wheel completely sober and deciding that he's speed crazy. Why don't you suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we ban the advertising of all high-powered automobiles because automobiles kill? We have talked about gasoline. We are allowing the advertising of gasoline. Is any one here suggesting that that makes people use more gasoline? Doesn't it make people take one or the other?

I'll point out some very obvious facts, Mr. Speaker, and the ones that disturb me the most. In those areas where advertising is prohibited entirely of alcohol, hard liquor, the use of the hard beverages outsells those of moderation. It is only in the areas where advertising is permitted that there is a larger use of those liquors of moderation. Now if you people, or the people are opposed to the sale of moderate beverages, then, ban them. Don't say to people that if you come into an industry that, if you are trying to say to a person it's not a question of utilizing more of one, but the question of making a choice…I defy, Mr. Speaker, anyone to hold an ad that appears in any publication in the Province of British Columbia, to hold up any ad and suggest that this ad is a terrible means of converting people and making them use and drink far more of any alcoholic beverage.

I would suggest that it has been used to develop some very fine products on all sides. I would suggest that it has given people more knowledge of the industry. How else are people aware that some new product may have come in that they may wish to try, which will, again, encourage them to switch from one to another. I would point out that, if you are going to talk about the utilization in an industry and it differs a great deal, in all respects to the gentlemen who have spoken, it differs a great deal from cigarettes. To my knowledge, the medical profession has not said that the use of alcohol and I stress the use, in moderation, is harmful. As many Members have suggested, here, tonight, it is even recommended and is even put into prescriptions by doctors. Certainly if that is a part, then, why suddenly should that industry be selected and say you cannot use the natural form of information which is available within the industry. Why don't we ban the sale of guns? Guns, if abused, kill, I would suggest. Snowmobiles, if abused, will kill. Aspirin, if abused, will kill. Many of the drugs and many of the things that are advertised — lemon oil, will kill, if it's abused. All of these things. To find, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking today of a fundamental bill moved in in the last stages of the Legislature today and placing a complete ban which, in itself, if it were going to be effective, might even have some final merit, that I fail to see… We are not able to stop the advertising which will come in from the large, outside corporations that are outside the Province. We will not stop those advertisers, who can utilize television…not like in cigarettes, in that they can't utilize television below the border…and will be able to take and pump in far more effective advertising than you are talking about. I say, in this Chamber, if people are here saying today that this is a personal thing, I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that a ban on advertising will protect the status quo, absolutely, and will eliminate the right of any small company.

I'll be very frank. Our own industry, my family industry, has suggested to me — with the largest share of the single market in the Province in British Columbia — it is against our best interests to fight the advertising bill because eventually that status quo will maintain itself. But, what about the new industries that have started in the Okanagan who are trying to get a product that people will know about. Should they be banned? What about a new product that may come up three months from now? We've put five of them on, all utilizing fruits from the. Province of British Columbia, whether it's

[ Page 826 ]

blackberries, apples, cherries, all of these have been developed within the last year and a half and have been advertised so that people will be aware of them. These are products which are legitimate. They are sold in the stores. They are products that we certainly are not ashamed of.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such a ban is, in essence, taking away a certain right to display these. And I suggest, even more, that if you are concerned or interested in the question of moderation, that advertising, as such, of those beverages which are in the interest of moderation, will be seriously affected as the record will show in every place else.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that some way can be found that in discussing and finally voting on this section. I will say this also, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to abstain myself from that vote. Not that I'm afraid to make my principles known but I would not want it, under any.circumstances, felt that I was voting in my best personal best interests and I intend to sustain from that particular vote, but I feel very strongly that such legislation is a step along a road of socialism which is making out that advertising itself is bad. That advertising is bad. To suggest that advertising, which has made it possible for us to know quickly about many of the great things, whether it be radio, television, vacuum cleaners, toasters, or any of these objects, which have helped and brought along a society and liberated women out of the kitchen, or helped people know more about their own world, to suggest that advertising is bad… It seems to me that the real attack today with this bill is on advertising, itself and I don't think it deserves it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we have been around the block tonight on this bill and I think pretty well most things have been said. I would like to place my feelings, however, before the House. I don't agree with this particular aspect of the bill. I don't agree with the banning of advertising, despite the fact that, on this particular product, I don't like some of these glorious ads that build up anything from wheaties to booze. I think that, if they don't properly represent the product, I think that they are bad news, regardless. Since that's not the point in question, I certainly don't think that we have any reason in this House tonight to be isolating liquor. I'll tell you why.

I spent a good part of the war in Prince Edward Island. Unfortunately I was stuck there in the training command for a little while. In Prince Edward Island there was a ban on liquor at that time. The Honourable Member for Burrard was saying that where there was prohibition there wasn't abuse of alcohol. Let me tell you that that was the furthest from the truth. I had been in Montreal. I spent a fair amount of time in Montreal in training school, and the difference between Montreal and Charlottetown was such a contrast you couldn't believe it. Charlottetown, on a Saturday night, you couldn't even walk down the sidewalk without at least five or ten drunks every few feet. It was fantastic — now, that was prohibition. In Montreal, you very rarely saw…and Montreal was wide open…you rarely saw a person who was drunk. So, let's not discuss prohibition in this frame of reference.

As far as advertising liquor, I agree with the Honourable Member from Vancouver Centre. It's because of advertising that the more moderate, the temperate types of liquor are now being drunk. Most people in the House know that I favour wine and I think that it's a good thing that society is moving in that direction. We don't consider that wine is the drink of the wino any longer because they are making a better quality product all the time. This business about where there are drunks… For an example, they say, "Well, 10 per cent of the French are alcoholics," because there is a lot of wine in France. It must be something to do with something besides the availability of liquor because one of the most temperate countries in the world is Italy, where there is an equal amount of wine available or any other kind of liquor that one would want. It must be the Scotch whiskey in France — the hard liquor. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I cannot…because I think that we head toward harder liquor, the more we isolate liquor. Therefore I just must not support this aspect of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I don't mind if I conclude this debate. The hour is getting long so I will be brief. It's interesting to hear some of the arguments this evening, both ways. I believe there is a better way of advertising and, for that reason, I will support this bill. Before I give the reason, I would just like to remind those who have been, this evening, so pious that they might well speak out for a greater use, a better use, of some of the revenue from the LCB of this Province towards the control of alcoholism. This Province has one of the lowest per capita expenditures in the control and cure for treatment for alcoholism in Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Get back to the bill.

MR. HARTLEY: Very well, Mr. Speaker. What I would like to suggest is that the LCB should put out a booklet listing all their products and the base of these products. If it's a good, genuine, fruit-juice wine, this should be said. If the beer has a good, malt, hops base, this should be said. If it has a synthetic base, then, this also should be told. This should be told factually, the way it is, so that anyone who is concerned could pick it up and read the actual facts of the wine, the beer, the liquor, the whiskey, whatever the case. Here, they would list the new products, have a page for new products so that any intelligent person, who is seriously concerned about buying and using a quality product, could do it in a proper, businesslike fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. TISDALLE: In speaking to this most impressive part of the bill, although we are zeroing in on a principle, I couldn't help but agree with the First Member from Vancouver Centre when he said he was going to abstain. I thought that would be the answer to the whole problem. If we follow suit in the whole sphere and all be abstainers, we wouldn't need this kind of legislation. But I presume that his abstinence was not to do with the product. We're very fond of you, First Member from Vancouver Centre.

Some have been saying that the statistics, or the observation of sidewalk statistics, in respect to Charlottetown versus Montreal, or wherever you might go, you must remember that in those days they didn't turn them all out at twelve

[ Page 827 ]

o'clock or when they closed the bars because they didn't have them, you see. So, you had your drunks not all at one time, spread out over the sidewalk. Today you get them all at one time, when they close the bars. It's a little different, then, of course. So you don't count them, then. I did notice, when I was driving down the street, tonight, there were two who couldn't cross the sidewalk in front of me. We didn't run them down. We waited for them to go across, on the wrong colour of the light, too. We can go down the street of any city probably and do our own sidewalk statistics and they don't mean a thing. This kind of thing, I believe, again, that will bring some honesty to the industry. The industry has not been proven honest in its advertising. They have associated themselves with every good recreational thing on earth and made an intimidation of the young minds to believe that that's the only way you can enjoy life. It's their own fault — the same as the cigarette and tobacco industry — it's their own fault. As the Member said, who is in the broadcasting business, he hoped his industry would stand up and be counted and do a good job. I don't think that I have any twinges of pain for these great big corporations that have been accused of having this Government in their back pockets. I, for one, won't have this Government being called…or myself being called…that I've had to take anything, politically, from them to stand on my own two feet. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 107 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

The House adjourned at 11:37 p.m.