[ Page 1169 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

Motion to report progress. Mr. McGeer — 1169

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1169

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1169

Mr. Chabot — 1169

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1169

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1170

On vote 11.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1170

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1177

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1180

Mr. Smith — 1182

Mr. Bennett — 1183

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1183

Mr. Bennett — 1183

Mr. Chabot — 1184

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1184

Mr. Chabot — 1185

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1185

Mrs. Jordan — 1185

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1186

Mr. Bennett — 1186

Mr. Wallace — 1186

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1186

Mrs. Jordan — 1187

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1187

Mrs. Jordan — 1187

Mr. Morrison — 1187

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1188

Mr. Morrison — 1188

Mr. Fraser — 1188

Mr. Gibson — 1188

Mr. Phillips — 1189

Mr. Fraser — 1189

Mr. Gibson — 1192

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

Mr. Gibson — 1192

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1193

Mrs. Jordan — 1193

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1194

Mrs. Jordan — 1195

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1196

Mr. Gibson — 1197

Mr. Phillips — 1198

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1198

Mr. Bennett — 1198

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1199

Mr. Bennett — 1199

Mr. McGeer — 1199

Mr. Phillips — 1200

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1200

Mr. Bennett — 1202

Mr. Phillips — 1203

Mr. Chabot — 1205

Mr. Smith — 1206

Mrs. Jordan — 1207

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1211

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1213

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1214

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1216

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1217

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1974

The House met at 6:12 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would refer the Hon. Member to standing order 44:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't see how we can debate the Attorney-General's estimates without the Attorney-General.

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

MR. McGEER: We didn't set the hours of the House. Quite obviously he's not here, and it's no abuse of the rules of the House to move the committee rise when the man whose estimates we are discussing is absent. The abuse of the House is to continue the debate in his absence.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order on the same point, the Member opposite indicates that we have been debating the Attorney-General's vote for the last number of hours. I contend that we have not been debating the Attorney-General's vote, and particularly that Member, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, I have not ruled any of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon out of order. Furthermore, I consider that the motion that was put to move to have the committee rise at this time just after we sat is an abuse of the rules. Therefore I will refuse to put the motion.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, the House Leader sets the hours which the House will sit, and he has the responsibility to ensure that while we're debating a Minister's estimates, the Minister is here. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the Attorney-General is on a television programme. If he's going to be on a television programme we shouldn't have been sitting at this particular time. I think the House Leader has lost complete control.

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

MR. CHABOT: He should have called the House for 7 o'clock if his Attorney-General's going to be on television, instead of being here to debate the estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We started this evening actually five minutes later than suggested by the Premier when we adjourned some 15 minutes ago, when there were five Members of the government backbench present and two cabinet Ministers. If, under those circumstances, you will refuse the opposition which was here.... With the exception of our Tory friends, almost every one of us was here. In fact, I can say that every one of us is here who is in the opposition. Now, if under the circumstances you find that the government can have all their people out of the room and the Ministers can be out of the room, and then you take away our right to even have a motion to adjourn, I find that absurd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair has made a ruling that he considers that the motion that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again is an abuse of the rules. Therefore I refuse to put the motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: I challenge your ruling.

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

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): That Member talks about the rules. He's the worst offender there is!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 1170 ]

deal with the report from the Chairman on the matter of a challenge to his ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in Committee of Supply, shortly after we met, without any other business having taken place, the first person to rise in his place moved the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and I refused to put the motion because I ruled that it was an abuse of the rules under standing order 44.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 16

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I think you are suffering from hypoglycaemia, and this is the reason you're having problems....

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

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

On vote 11.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're delighted to see that there are more than the two cabinet Ministers and five backbenchers than were here when the debate in committee began a quarter of an hour ago.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Are you going to repeat yourself again? You've been repeating yourself for five days now. Aren't you tired of that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to touch upon a subject which has been given no prominence whatsoever so far in this debate. The subject of alcohol.

Under the Attorney-General's department, he is responsible for the functioning of the Liquor Control Board. He is also responsible for the enforcement of legislation with respect to alcohol abuse. I think it is appropriate at this time that we say a few words about the subject.

To start with, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read to you just a few words from a flaming headline from that Vancouver newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, that starts off: "Barrett Toasts Drinking, European-style." The date is Friday, June 15, 1973. It occurred after the last estimates of this department were discussed. It starts off by saying:

"Fresh from the beer halls of Munich and sidewalk cafes of Paris, Premier Dave Barrett said Thursday he's ready to relax liquor laws to let British Columbians drink European-style.

"Barrett said he was so impressed by the operation of public drinking places during his recent trip to Europe that he's dropping his objections to pubs and taverns in B.C.

"The Premier told a press conference that he has told Attorney-General Alex Macdonald about his change of heart and indicated Macdonald will start considering legislation to introduce a European approach to drinking in the province."

We haven't heard very much from the Attorney-General on this proposal. Very little indeed. A few words, of course, but very little.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've been listening so closely, Mr. Attorney-General, to the squawk-box when I'm in my office. I have not been, as you have been, on television and taking your time away from the House as happened earlier this evening.

MR. LIDEN: You walked out of the House when you couldn't have your own way the other day, and you missed it.

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

"This would include sidewalk cafes serving liquor, entertainment in pubs and a more casual, family atmosphere in drinking spots.

"Barrett's previous objection to relaxation of liquor laws, although contrary to official New Democratic Party policy, had been seen as a major stumbling block to substantial changes."

So much for the party!

[ Page 1171 ]

"The Premier returned Wednesday from a three-week tour that took him to Ottawa, New York and European capitals. It was his first trip overseas.

"'I will admit publicly that some of my ideas about taverns have altered,' he said in a press conference.

"'I visited some pubs and I visited a wine garden and I visited a beer garden and some taverns.'"

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

"'As you know, I have always resisted development of that particular type of facility.

"'I think (now) there is a lot to be said for the European approach to the use of alcohol. And I have already said to the Attorney-General this morning that the barriers that I had against the development of pubs and taverns and a different approach to the outlet of liquor have been lessened substantially.'"

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

"'In Paris, the sidewalk cafes are just fantastic, just fantastic,' Barrett said.

"'My resistance to these things has dropped. I think they're very attractive. I think there's room for it in B.C. now, I really do.

"'I was impressed, very impressed.'

"The Premier said that when he visited a beer hall in Munich, he sat next to two tables where families were enjoying an evening out together.

"'At one table was a young family with three young children. They were eating their supper, enjoying the music and sharing in a very gentle evening of passing the time with a family in a way I had not seen before.

"'And I think it is most appropriate that the youngsters had a very calm, rational, mature experience in dealing with alcohol in a setting that involved food and music, and not just guzzling beer.'"

Well, there was much more to the same effect. For brevity's sake I won't read it all. But the essence of it was....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, certainly I'll carry on if you would like more, Mr. Member. Anyway, there's another comment here which goes on to say: "Most of the impetus for liquor changes has come from the Attorney-General. With the Premier now backing him up, changes of a more sweeping nature should not be too far off." Well, that was the major result of many thousands of dollars of public money being spent in Europe. We, of course, have heard of other things: B.C. steel mill, other things. Of course, nothing really materialized and, indeed, there has not even been any major change in the liquor legislation. And I wonder why.

I would just like to read from another article of the same time, from the Alberni newspaper, of my own views, and I said: "Barrett's Booze Views Gets Cautious Support, Says Anderson." The headline also says: "Anderson predicts Tory demise," and I assure you I was not anticipating the statement of the hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) a few days ago when I made that.

We're in a situation now where the Premier is on record, last summer; the Attorney-General has been instructed to get out there and change the law and improve the liquor legislation of British Columbia. Those of us who have been waiting and listening and who are interested in this have not seen anything at all. And I would like to know why. After all, the Attorney-General was the one instructed by the Premier to get onto this and do it.

I think the proposals of the Premier started off from a point of, I would say, innocence or ignorance. I don't think he really understood what the issues are. That's why he got only cautious support from me. I realize the liquor laws need amending, need changes. I realize improvements can be made.

But I would like to bring a few facts to the attention of the House, and particularly the Attorney-General, who has been charged by the Premier with the duty of not only carrying out the administration of the Liquor Control Board but also bringing in new laws, none of which are before this House, Therefore I can comment at great length, Mr. Chairman, on the whole subject under the estimates of the Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I could read some of these quotes fully, if you would like, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I wouldn't be unkind. After all, we have backbenchers now in the government party trying to ditch their leader. I assure you, the comments of the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) were most revealing. It is obviously a major subject of discussion. I'll be questioning and commenting on this at a more appropriate time, Mr. Attorney-General. There's a group in the backbench trying hard to find a new leader. Who knows, they

[ Page 1172 ]

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, and I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I keep getting distracted by the suggestions of the Attorney-General, this lovely prospect of a change of Premier by way of a backbench coup. It seems likely....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They're looking at the Chairman for leader? Is that so? Are you, Mr. Chairman, a candidate for leadership? He certainly doesn't say no.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I quite agree that I would be far better than what you have now. But I have my principles. My colleagues over here are a great deal more attractive than your colleagues over there. So I'm staying where I am.

Marijuana and alcohol. A short time ago it was reported, namely three or four years ago, that 20 per cent of students in high schools had tried marijuana. There was a public outcry. Yet, at the same time we have the fact that 80 per cent of students in high schools are on another drug, namely alcohol, and there was a collective yawn. People were not interested at all.

There was no talk at that time about alcohol being a drug, no talk at all. What there was was simply relief that the kids were no longer on marijuana, but they had picked the drug that their parents appreciated, namely, alcohol. And if there was ever complacency which is undeserved, it is complacency on the subject of alcohol. It is a drug and it is impinging more and more on our lives, and causing more and more problems.

Mr. Chairman, some years ago there were fairly distinct forces at work in the Province of British Columbia, and elsewhere in North America, on this subject. On the one hand there were the temperance groups — I have here correspondence from the Women's Christian Temperance Union — and on the other there were the brewing interests. So, you have two arguments, or at least two forums — two groups dedicated....

AN HON. MEMBER: You need union control.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Anyway these two groups were dedicated to the two distinct philosophies: one to the total eradication of alcohol; the other to the expansion of sales.

It was intriguing, when I looked into this matter and did some research, that the father of the present Attorney-General, then a prominent politician from British Columbia, was involved in much of the discussion in those early years. Indeed, it's probably not amiss to point out, Mr. Chairman, that a government of this province was elected on a platform of prohibition in those early years of this century. It was a major question in the Province of British Columbia. It was a question, indeed, that swept the polls on one occasion.

Curiously enough there was so much abuse because of the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes — and I know the Attorney-General has read enough history of this era to know what I'm talking about. Finally, of course, prohibition was repealed.

In any event, there were two distinct groups, both arguing. In the argument, in the adversary system, came out a great deal of fact and information on the abuse of alcohol. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, since that time the relative strength of one of the parties has been substantially eroded — that is, of course, the temperance movement.

Now, I'm not here speaking on behalf of the temperance movement. My regret that it's gone down in strength is only that the discussion which previously took place about the effects of alcohol has now stopped because there is not a group which is active, organized, well-financed, vocal and militant on the one side. There is none at all.

Admittedly the other side — the brewing interests and the distilling interests — have reduced their propaganda in favour of their products, have moderated their stand; they have changed their approach and they are not doing the type of thing that we saw, for example, in the 30s in Britain where there was a major campaign during the depression period to encourage the use of alcohol by children or, I should say, by sub-adults — people under 21. We're not seeing that now but still there is, unfortunately, no voice speaking up on the other side. And tonight, because it's the Attorney-General's estimates and he's responsible for liquor, I'm going to say a few words about the other side of the coin.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, certainly. The Minister of Human Resources mentioned Alcoholics Anonymous, and I would just like to spend a few moments on that.

I appreciate the fact that he's raised this because

[ Page 1173 ]

they are a very good group, do excellent work, mostly within their own membership and mostly with respect to one of the most unfortunate groups in our society — and I really appreciate the fact that the Minister of Human Resources has raised this — namely, the alcoholic, a person who is, well, hooked on alcohol the same way as we've heard of people being hooked on drugs in the debate earlier today.

The AA is a very important organization and I for one would like to applaud the work they do in this province and elsewhere in North America and the world. They're a first-class group.

But what they do, and I think the Minister of Human Resources would agree with me here, is not get out and crusade against alcohol in the way the temperance union did.

AN HON. MEMBER: They work anonymously.

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

The whole purpose of this group is to prevent a stigma being attached to people who wish to get out there and solve their own problems with respect to alcohol. It's a self-help organization; one that I greatly admire and I wish them well. But I think that the Minister of Human Resources would agree with me that it's not the type of organization to carry out the public debate that I have indicated should be carried out. This is one of our problems today: we have many people who will speak on the evils of drugs; many people who will speak about heroin; many people who will speak about misuse of marijuana or other drugs, but very few, really, that speak on the abuse of alcohol.

Now I realize that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not very interested in this, and he's making facetious comments. But he should think of the numbers of man-days and woman-days lost to the work force of British Columbia due to the effects of alcoholism. It's one of our major problems in the marketplace.

I would suspect, indeed, that it probably surpasses strikes in this province as an impediment to the proper functioning of our industries. We always hear a lot about strikes but a subject such as alcohol and the effects of alcohol, the ability of alcoholism and even social drinking to reduce the effectiveness of the work force, to lead to absenteeism and other labour problems is something that I'm surprised the Minister of Labour has not already talked about in this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. But when it comes to your estimates, Mr. Minister of Labour, perhaps I'll tell you a little about this too because you're clearly totally in the dark about this. But we're on the Attorney-General's estimates, and if you Ministers would like to let me continue, I'll return to my speech.

In the course of this evolution and the disappearance of the temperance groups, we lost a podium, a forum, for discussion of the whole problem of alcohol; the "drys" have been obliterated in effect by the "wets". There were powerful economic forces which were alluded to, most appropriately I thought, by the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) earlier today when he talked about some of the problems and influence of the large distilling interests.

So there are powerful, economic forces who can realize a tremendous advantage by selling as much alcohol as possible to anyone who can pay the price and who, Mr. Chairman, can profit by the saturation of our society.

The fact is: most British Columbians and most Canadians drink responsibly; they enjoy a drink; they're aware of the problems of drinking too much and they drink with caution. However, we have to bear in mind certain facts. Canadians at the present time drink 30 per cent more alcohol than we did 25 years ago — 30 per cent more. We drink it in more locations, in more situations and in greater varieties — the martini lunch.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The martini lunch is a social phenomenon. We drink alcohol at younger ages, Mr. Chairman. And I'm glad you're in the chair, Mr. Chairman, because as a member of the clergy, a man who has taken a considerable professional interest in human problems, I think you might understand some of the difficulties about which I am talking here. You've had to deal with people who have had their lives destroyed by either their own drinking or that of other people. I appreciate the fact that you're listening so intently.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few figures here. We have in Ontario, a province approximately 2.5 times our size, 300,000 persons who drink enough alcohol, approximately nine ounces of whisky or its equivalent in beer and wine, every day to increase their risk of contracting organic diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver. Of the 300,000, half have reached the state of alcoholic illness.

Now, we know that alcoholism is a problem much more acute and severe in the Province of British Columbia than it is in the Province of Ontario. We know as a fact that this problem is much more acute in B.C. and we can confidently expect a minimum of 60,000 such people in British Columbia today suffering from a disease, and yet the Ministers of the

[ Page 1174 ]

Crown seem to find this of no interest. Well, as they don't, I'll have to continue, Mr. Chairman, because you at least are paying me the courtesy of attention.

Of the entire adult population, 86 per cent of all males and 75 per cent of females drink. A substantial number. These are the potential victims, the potential alcoholics, the people with potential alcohol problems.

In other words, we must define what is at stake, Mr. Chairman, in terms of economics, in terms of health, in terms of social disruption if our society continues its headlong rush to emulate the so-called civilized, continental style of drinking of other nations.

We very often hear of this continental style of drinking promoted by people who have returned from a three- or four-week holiday in Europe, especially in France and Italy. I think the Premier of the Province of British Columbia on his first trip abroad certainly falls in that category. We've seen nothing else come out of that trip except the typical touristy statements.

They report that the French and the Italians always seem to be sipping wine or some other beverage, that they do so practically at all meals, and alcohol is integrated into the normal, daily life of the people of those countries, and that hardly anyone appears to be drunk. Now, doesn't that appear to be similar to what the Premier said when he came back? That's right, that's the traditional, simplistic, touristic approach of people overseas who run into the different styles of drinking, the different lifestyles of continental countries for the first time.

Consequently, we hear, as we're heard from the Premier, repeated pleas to free up our drinking restrictions, to allow for more drinking at sidewalk cafes and sporting events, to allow alcohol at picnics in the parks, and to promote alcohol as a means of inter-family communications by serving wine at meals to even younger children than are presently served.

Now this all seems sensible to these people, Mr. Chairman. It appears to be a reasonable compromise, if one can accept the basic premise, that these drinking styles collectively are as innocent as they seem. But the facts, Mr. Chairman — and I'm sure you're aware of this because of your interest in human problems — are brutally different from the casual observations which holidaying tourists bring back.

Mr. Chairman, in France the average citizen drinks almost three times as much alcohol as a citizen of Ontario, and more than three times as much alcohol as a citizen of British Columbia. He drinks approximately 25 litres of absolute alcohol a year compared with somewhat over 10 litres of absolute alcohol in the Province of British Columbia. Now France is a country where drinking is considered a social function. It's integrated into a daily fabric of life where wine is almost essential. It's essential with meals, family functions, at gatherings or any type of social function.

But it is because that style of drinking leads to alcoholic saturation that the French get the problems they do. There is, after all, only so much a person can drink, just as surely — and I'm sure the Premier knows this — as there is only so much a person can eat, or so many cars he can drive. There is a saturation point, and this is not to be forgotten.

In case anybody is concerned or doubtful about this question of saturation, may I just point out that in the past two decades, when Canadian alcoholic consumption has been shooting up, in France it's increased only 1 per cent. In other words, an alcoholic saturation level of a society had been reached in France at least a generation ago, many years ago. It's still the highest in the world, but it has only increased in the last two decades by 1 per cent. The reason is, of course, that alcoholic saturation of a society had been reached.

You've got to remember too that alcohol in the form of wine is cheaper, as a measure of disposable income, in France than almost anywhere else in the world. There was a very fine CBC programme on that, Mr. Chairman, that I'm sure you saw. The price of a glass of Coke in Paris is 40 cents; the price of a glass of wine was under 25 cents, depending on what type of wine you went for.

It was a very interesting, I think a half-hour or hour-long, documentary on the problems of alcoholism. It really sparked my interest in this because I must say that I too perhaps have been too much of the casual tourist in my approach to alcoholic problems in other European countries.

So there are few legal restrictions. I believe there is a bar in France for every 280 people — that's every 280 men, women and children. I believe that it works out to something like one person being engaged in peddling liquor....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just one minute.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Attorney-General's been generous enough to suggest one minute. I know that this is a subject close to his heart and I will just chat, Mr. Chairman, a little more freely with you perhaps rather than follow my formal text.

Remember that in France, again, one out of 86 of the work force is actually peddling liquor and a total of 4 million Frenchmen, out of a population of, I believe, slightly under 50 million, are in one way or another in the alcohol business. It's an enormous proportion of their work force, of their population. It's an enormously interesting situation.

I give these figures. I know that some people on the government side don't look exactly happy about

[ Page 1175 ]

them. I give them because we in the opposition realize that when a tourist like our Premier goes abroad at public expense, it's important when he comes back, if he's failed to learn the true lesson of what goes on in France, for us here in the Legislature, we poor peasants who are left behind and have to pay our own way whenever we go on trips, it's up to us to point out there were certain things that happened in France which he in his high-level zipping around there, first-class hotels, chauffeur-driven cars and the rest of it, was totally unaware of. That's why I am glad the Attorney-General will shortly be back because I would like to continue on the subject.

The average consumption in Canada has gone up 30 per cent, as I mentioned earlier, from over 25 years ago. We're not alone. In Austria it's gone up by 127 per cent, the Netherlands by 111 per cent and West Germany by virtually 200 per cent — a substantial increase. So this is the order of magnitude that we're talking about.

It's fine to talk about French sidewalk cafes, but the French situation is unique in Europe. We cannot assume that we can import their social institutions and attitudes over here and expect to get away scot free. There may well be things we can learn from them; but, as I've indicated to you, we simply cannot bring in, holus bolus, French drinking styles based on the false premise that somehow they don't have an alcoholic problem. They have one; they have the worst in the world, and I will shortly give you illustrations of this.

In France again, cirrhosis of the liver: the death rate in that country is the highest in the world, six times higher than in Canada — six times higher. This is a thoroughly unpleasant disease. It is a fatal disease for many people. In a society where you have this saturation drinking, you have six times the number of deaths from that cause than we have here.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is not in his seat, unfortunately, but in France 42 per cent of all health expenditures in France are attributable to the handling of alcohol-related diseases — 42 per cent.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member feels that he will die of something else. I'm sure he will. I'm sure he will. Well, so be it.

So this is the other side of the coin. In B.C. the effect, in terms of our social health and our economic cost, of the present level of alcohol use is serious and it's far more serious than it's generally thought. I don't think we have to use alarmist tactics to dramatize the growth of the use of alcohol and the even greater growth of the impact of the use of alcohol. As you go up on the scale, your problems get more numerous. If you double the number of bottles consumed, you don't double the number of alcoholics; you perhaps triple or quadruple it.

If you double the number of litres of alcohol consumed, you don't double the number of people who die of cirrhosis of the liver; you perhaps triple or quadruple that. So you can see we're on a rising curve, Mr. Chairman. You increase the use of alcohol and you suddenly reach the problem areas in the upper scale of the graph, and the Attorney-General, I'm sure, agrees with me there.

So I just think we should start looking at what has happened over there and see whether we want to find out whether that's what's going to happen in B.C.

Now I'd like to refer you to two studies that have succeeded in placing the problem of alcohol abuse into perspective, Now neither the LeDain Commission on the non-medical use of drugs nor the United States National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse were established to deal with the question of alcohol misuse.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But in the course of the research done in the whole field of drug abuse the two commissions, both acting independently of one another — I think this is an interesting point when we discuss the conclusions of those two commissions — came virtually to the same conclusions — the pre-eminent one being that alcohol misuse is by far the greatest drug problem in North America today. Alcohol abuse is by far the greatest drug problem — not marijuana, not heroin; no problem with poppies in Turkey on this one. It's alcohol...grain, rye, grown on those great Canadian prairies. This is the problem that is the greatest one that we face in this country today.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So I think that we both have to realize — and this again has been commented upon quite well, I felt quite learnedly, by my friends from Langley (Mr. McClelland) and from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) — that when you start getting into related problems, when you start getting into alcohol-induced crime like drug-induced crime, you really start getting into difficulties.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is here and he knows of the tremendous problem of the drunken driver, the tremendous number of people who are mutilated, killed, disfigured as a result of the drunken driver.

[ Page 1176 ]

That's what I call an alcohol-related problem; it's not the problem of alcohol itself. We in North America with our high-speed vehicles, our use of the family car, are tremendously subjected to the misuse of alcohol, because, of course, we drive so much more than other people.

So as a final point, may I point out to the Minister that the Canadian Medical Association, in its general assembly, pointed out that the No. 1 drug problem in Canada is alcoholism, and urged all its member physicians to double their efforts in this regard.

Now I have a few figures from Ontario which, by the way, has far the best statistics — far the best. I'm sure that the Minister responsible for statistics in British, Columbia should get after his Ottawa colleagues in the DBS because Ontario seems to be far better than the rest of us in this area, and I'm using their statistics.

In 1969 in Ontario 22,600 people between the ages of 20 and 70 died. Those who died after the age of threescore and 10 were presumed to die of natural causes, I guess. In examining the records of these deaths, there was an involvement of alcohol which was even greater than anticipated.

I'm quoting here from a study done.

"The data based on an analysis of coroners' reports showed a range of alcohol-associated illnesses that goes far beyond the illness indicator usually associated with alcohol,"

which is, of course, cirrhosis of the liver.

"Of these deaths in 1969, 38 per cent of the cirrhosis deaths were due to alcohol. But we found that alcohol was also implicated as a cause in 22 per cent of peptic ulcer deaths, 18 per cent of suicides, 15 per cent of pneumonia deaths, 16 per cent of deaths due to cancer of the upper digestive and respiratory tracts, and more than 5 per cent of the deaths due to heart and artery disease. In addition, alcohol was involved in 45 per cent of deaths by poisoning, 43 per cent of accidental fire deaths involved alcohol and almost 25 per cent of deaths were due to falls and other physical trauma."

Of the total number of deaths in that year, 11 per cent were alcoholics. In effect, the study found that the alcoholic, Mr. Chairman, had twice the chance of premature death than had the non-alcoholic person. Now, this is pretty significant. We've got to consider the cost of this illness and death in terms of personal anguish and disturbance, and it just cannot be quantified in terms of dollars and cents. It's something that you would understand, Mr. Chairman, well beyond any monetary calculation. But we can quantify some of the direct health and social costs of alcoholism by calculating the proportion of costs attributable to alcohol-related problems in the public general hospital system — the mental hospital system — under social legislation known as the Family Benefits Act, and through the Children's Aid Societies.

Research found that in terms of health and social costs, alcohol-related problems are responsible for more than 10 per cent of the expenditures in general hospitals, more than 15 per cent in mental hospitals, approximately 20 per cent under the Family Benefits Act, and 30 per cent of expenditure of the Children's Aid Societies — a tremendous proportion, in particular with respect to children. Just think of the damaging effect there.

The Ontario taxpayer, based on '71 figures, paid $89 million to the hospital insurance plan for illness related to alcoholism, and he paid $17 million through the mental hospital system, $9 million through Family Benefits Act and $11 million through Children's Aid. And the figures in this province are worse.

So we have a situation where we are facing an enormous problem. I should add, just for the benefit of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), that over 50 per cent of motor-vehicle deaths are related to alcohol and, indeed, might well be considered due to alcohol problems.

So we're now in a situation, Mr. Chairman, where in a democratic society, of course, it's the majority's decision which ultimately governs in the case of social action. No government, no study group, no elitist group of people in the social sciences — no group acts independently of the public for long, although I must say the present government's doing its best. If the public wants greater access to chemicals such as alcohol, if it wants the freedom to drink in the parks and picnic grounds or, on the other hand, if it wants to ban them from public functions, well then the public's representatives, which are ourselves, will have to submit. And that's the nature of democracy.

The important thing to remember is that the facts of the problems related to alcohol are not being properly brought out, and that's the purpose of my intervention in this debate tonight. The decision about how to respond to the growth of alcohol misuse or, in fact, whether to respond at all is one that has to be made in the minds of individuals. Hopefully it will be made on the basis of the best information available. I for one am dismally disappointed in the Attorney-General's and Minister of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly's) failure to inform people of the problems involved.

If we're to serve society in the most responsible manner, I think we've got to take some steps to encourage debate. People must know the consequences that they're going to face in terms of economic, health and social costs if we continue on the present course to make alcohol an essential component in our everyday lives. In all the literature about alcohol and its use, there's no more thoroughly researched area than the relationship between alcohol

[ Page 1177 ]

consumption levels and alcohol-related damage.

MR. STEVES: What about the relationship between alcohol and boring speeches?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Without exception, nations that have a high alcoholic consumption level have the greater prevalence of alcohol-related illnesses. The more people there are in society, even though most may drink moderately, the more alcoholics there will be and the greater the incidence of alcohol-related damage. There's simply no country in the world, Mr. Chairman, where this equation has been upset.

So if liberalization means, and it does, the greater use of alcohol and greater prevalence of disease and death as a consequence, we've got to start considering what changes such as those proposed by the Premier of the province, encouraged by the Attorney-General, and given guarded support by myself, add up to. We've got to consider alcohol in sidewalk cafes and park picnics, which seem innocuous enough themselves, and what might eventually result as a consequence of that type of liberalization.

I'm amazed that a social worker such as the Premier, who constantly repeats his great days as a social worker, didn't discuss, when he came back or with the Attorney-General or at any time since, the relationship between his superficial, tourist-inspired ideas to the whole problem of social policy and the whole social area. He didn't do it, and thus my intervention to encourage the Attorney-General to do it instead.

The development of social policy does not begin and end with the isolated action such as licensing a specific social club, beer garden, sidewalk cafe, or anything of that nature. It is dependent upon an integration of all these actions into a discernible pattern and into a clearly developed thrust. Even though it may seem backward and perhaps negative to hold the line in extending the liberalization in certain isolated cases, I think it's important to realize that you can't talk about isolated cases when you're talking about alcohol, alcohol problems and alcohol-related diseases.

I think it's imperative for people to know the role that alcohol could play in their lives — the whole picture, not just parts of it. I think it's imperative for us to inform a public, which is largely unaware of the potential consequences, of the consequences of their decisions, and I think it's important for the Premier as political leader of this province to get away from the tourist approach and get down to something which would be more responsible, something a little closer to what we would expect from a man of his background.

One of the issues is the policies controlling the number and types of outlets as well as control of the hours and days of sale. I've had quite an interesting letter from a William Wallace in Vancouver:

"I have read and noted your opinion in the Sun and the change of attitude on liquor by the Premier. After many years of assorted drinking here, in Europe and the U.S.A., plus a period with the Vancouver Traffic and Safety Council, I and we came to the definite conclusion long ago that we need first of all a reduction in the alcoholic content of our beer from 9 to 3 per cent, as in the State of Washington and all the way to California."

He may not be right, but I'm giving his views because I think they're worthy of consideration.

"Next to this is the return to the closure of all beer parlours from about 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. That's to get rid of the potential alcoholics and break them up and send them home for supper."

This is done in Britain with the pubs. That's where that famous phrase comes from that the Attorney-General knows so well: "Time, gentlemen, please."

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

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on previous occasions when this House has been forced to sit through the supper hour, it's been brought to our attention that no Member is allowed by the Speaker to have food in this House. The Speaker has made that ruling. Now either we're going to turn this place into a McDonald's hamburger joint or we're going to have some dignity in here. (Laughter.) I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the rules must be kept the same for every Member of this House. Now, if it was necessary for the Attorney-General or anyone else to eat, we could have adjourned this House for a supper hour the same as any other normal business procedure would have done. I want your ruling on that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the matter has been drawn to my attention and I have sought guidance from the Speaker. I anticipate this shortly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I didn't really think this was normal hours of the House, but I've had the food removed. Okay? Let's go on. On with your speech.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If the Attorney-General, whose estimates we're considering, does not feel these

[ Page 1178 ]

are normal hours of the House, may I request that we return to the normal hours of the House? He has made perfectly clear the government's intention as was done earlier this week. We've had government by exhaustion, legislation by exhaustion; now we have it by starvation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! The complaint is a valid one. The point of order was well taken and the food has been removed. I would ask the Hon. Second Member for Victoria to continue.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the point is, Mr. Chairman, is the Attorney-General to get away with his talk about not normal hours? Why are we sitting here?

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This has been determined by the normal course of the business of the House. It is not for me as the Chair or for the Attorney-General or for the Hon. Member to question. The House has made the decision and we must abide by it. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will cease questioning some of the absurdities of the way this House is run, but I guess that's the responsibility of the House Leader.

I was talking, Mr. Chairman, before the food of the Attorney-General was removed from the chamber, about the possibility of a break in pub hours to get the lads home. The hope is that this would serve the same function as a similar break has in the British pub system: to break up the drinking pattern, to encourage people who are sitting at the bar, having an extra drink and perhaps dawdling there, to get home for supper or at least to get some food. It's the system which they have in Britain and it apparently has served some purpose there.

Mr. William Wallace from Vancouver, who wrote to me on June 20, 1973, proposes this as well. I think there's something there. He goes on: "This is the way they do it in Blighty. Pubs over there, as here, are for getting drunk in. Strictly not 'Pig & Whistle.' " He goes on to say,"This is what your party should favour. The benefits and accident prevention alone would be startling and earn the gratitude of many people." I don't know whether Mr. Wallace is a member of my party or any other but I admire his letter and thank him for it publicly and urge other parties to consider it. I'll go back to the text of my speech.

Interjection.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm just glancing at the text of my speech and I'll raise my head up from it from time to time after refreshing my mind. I'm not allowed to have any food or coffee. Mr. Chairman, is it correct to have coffee cups in the legislative chamber? I wonder whether we could have this matter settled?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue his speech? I've sought the guidance of the Speaker and I expect this shortly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could you please get me a cup of coffee? I would like a cup of coffee as the Attorney-General has a cup of coffee. I feel that if they're going to have one rule for the government, they should have the same rule for the opposition.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We come to the influence of the variety of liquor on customs and styles. Then we go on to advertising. I'd like to say a word or two about advertising.

There's no reason to believe that alcohol is any different from any other product. In other words, it's advertised because people want to sell more. No question about that. We've had bills in this House brought in and slung out on advertising. But it's to be remembered that advertising does encourage consumption, and I just leave you with that.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, we had a statement the other day by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would request that the Hon. Members not interrupt the speaker.

MR. CHABOT: Control that Minister over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

[ Page 1179 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The lowering of the drinking age is also another factor which has had an effect upon the amount consumed. It also has had an effect upon the amount they consume after the age of 21 as well as below it.

We go on to the application of more stringent, legal sanctions on public intoxication. This has been studied very widely in a large number of jurisdictions. Actually, it seems to have little effect on the rates of alcoholism. In France and Italy there is a high rate of alcoholism and a relatively low rate of arrests for drunkenness, so there doesn't appear to be a great deal of correlation between the two.

We've heard statements from time to time that people who drink in moderation — beer drinkers or wine drinkers — should be encouraged and hard liquor should be discouraged. I remember a happy summer I spent in Sweden where the government had adopted that policy. The government also owned a number of vineyards in France and they had some excellent wines at very cheap rates on their liquor shelves in the hope of persuading people not to drink schnapps or Scotch or vodka or anything else.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That man has great trouble finding applause even from his own backbenchers. The fact is, however, that the correlation between the soft liquors, beer and wine, in alcoholism has been shown time after time not to be...

MR. STEVES: Your backbenchers are meeting secretly without you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...a factor in the problem of alcoholism. The fact is you don't reduce alcoholism and alcohol-related problems by encouraging beer and wine. It just doesn't happen that way and studies have shown it. In Australia, Czechoslovakia and West Germany these studies have been done. It's not the types of alcoholic beverage but the total consumption of absolute alcohol that matters.

We now come to an interesting point. The research does show that there is a correlation between the cost of alcohol and consumption. I know the Attorney-General has been raising prices like fury, and in this regard I guess he should be encouraged for having done so. The data from many countries has shown that where the cost of alcohol — and it's lowest, as I mentioned, in France — in relation to the disposable income of the person concerned is low, alcoholism is high. Where the cost of alcohol is high in terms of disposable income, then alcohol is less of a problem.

It's an important factor when we consider it requires a far smaller portion of one's weekly earnings, considering the wage levels and prices of other consumer goods, to buy a given quantity of alcohol today than it has been for several decades. From 1949 to 1969, per capita disposable incomes increased enormously while the average price of liquor and beer in relation to today's income in dollar value has actually declined. There was a very minor increase in the price of beer not so long ago, but I think if you cast your mind back in this province there really has been almost no change.

I believe the man responsible was the former Member for South Okanagan, the former Premier of the province (Hon. Mr. Bennett), who was determined not to allow the brewers to increase the price of beer. He felt, for some reason, they were gouging or making excessive profits, and he made sure they didn't get that extra money. Curiously, Mr. Bennett's efforts to cut back on liquor profits led to increased consumption and the result.... I notice the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) nodding and shaking his head and looking terribly upset. My goodness, he didn't realize he was responsible for that. He was a cabinet Minister at the time and probably never took it up with the Premier. But in actual fact, the Premier's attempts to have the price of the product kept down to reduce the profits to the brewing companies resulted in higher consumption. I'm sorry, Mr. Member for Columbia River, I can see you're very upset, but all I can say is that studies elsewhere have demonstrated the fact that there is a close correlation between cost and consumption.

Alcohol today is probably cheaper than it has ever been and society is becoming more and more conditioned to its use — under greater variety of conditions. Society also seems bent on pursuing policies that might ultimately lead to a saturation point that is in existence in other countries. I mentioned the example of France.

We've got a choice in B.C. We can allow this trend to greater consumption to continue. This means we must develop new means to meet the consequent health problems and the social costs of related alcoholism, and we must develop new techniques to handle the spread of alcohol-related problems. On the other hand, we can work to curbing or even reversing the trends to greater consumption. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think at this time I will allow the Hon. Member the indulgence of finishing his cup of coffee. But following that, I have received guidance from the Speaker. The Speaker has indicated to me through the message that it is the practice and tradition of the House not to have food of any description in the House. Therefore, should it

[ Page 1180 ]

arise again in the future we will simply ask them to remove any coffee cups, food, anything of that nature.

I would also point out that it is also the custom of the House not to read newspapers in the House unless you're intending to quote from them in a speech. Therefore, I would request that the practice of reading a paper in the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have great difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in educating some Members of this House. One on my left over there, a left in every respect, is one of those who is constant trouble to us. Nevertheless, I'm glad that he's dropped the newspaper.

I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Chairman, about the coffee cup. I just felt like a cup of coffee and, as we had already broken the rules so flagrantly in the case of the Attorney-General, it struck me that the only way of pointing out that the rules should be enforced was for an opposition Member to have a cup of coffee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might point out that in the past there has been some latitude allowed Ministers whose estimates are being considered. But strictly speaking, food is not allowed in the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we can appreciate the need for latitude. We certainly didn't comment when the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) had a sandwich in the House and quaffed a cup of coffee as well. We didn't complain at all at that time.

But when the House has run through the supper hour, when we were given seven minutes off and the government can't even find more than seven people to get back in the House when the Speaker rings the bell, then we feel that perhaps the House rules are not being properly obeyed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to return to his original remarks.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I realize that I should return to it.

I will have to back up a page. We get a choice. On the one hand we can allow the trend to greater consumption to continue, which means that we must develop new means to meet the consequent health and social costs of increased alcoholism, and we must develop new techniques to handle the spread of alcohol-related problems.

On the other hand, we can work to curbing or even reversing the trend to greater consumption. I am not the Minister responsible; I throw this out for his consideration. He wouldn't answer earlier whether we are going to have a soft or hard approach to drugs. I wonder whether he would indicate to the House what the government's plans are with respect to alcohol.

If we follow the first course, we are going to have to be perfectly clear about the enormous health and social costs involved. The misuse and use of alcohol is enormously expensive to society. We are going to have to be realistic about those costs if we continue this movement towards saturation. We realize that this price will include: (1) a greater appropriation on health and social welfare funds for the treatment of alcohol-related diseases and the rehabilitation of alcoholics.

(2) Greater demands on existing and projected hospitals and medical personnel.

(3) An increase in the prevalence of alcohol-related diseases and death that will most frequently show up in the form of liver cirrhosis, heart disease, pneumonia, ulcers, cancer of the upper digestive and respiratory tract, suicide, homicide and fatal accidents.

(4) There will be an increase in the rate of alcohol-related traffic accidents and deaths. We are going to have more people killed on our roads. We are going to have more people picked up by the new ambulance service of the province and taken either to the morgue or to the hospital.

(5) There is going to be an increase in the cost of business and industry. The Minister of Labour has left, but I mentioned earlier the problems associated with the drunken or alcoholic employee. I don't just mean the wage-earner; I mean there are probably more alcoholic employees in business in the upper echelons than there ever could be at the bottom, as a proportion of the number. I bet you if you checked out the board rooms of British Columbia, you would find far more alcoholics there than you will find on the floor of the plant or on the greenchain. You will find many more in the top positions. That is a problem.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Have they got lots of money?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, now, of course, if the government is taking over those board rooms, we are getting more alcoholics in the government service. There is no question about it, Mr. Minister of Mines. We know full well that you are concerned about this problem, and we appreciate your intervention in the debate.

If we hold to the second option and seek to reduce the impact of alcohol in our lives, then we must be equally frank about admitting the difficulties of the past. We have a society conditioned to a more liberal drinking attitude, and anyone who runs counter to the trend will not be popular. Anyone who recommends using any of the control mechanisms I have mentioned will likely meet considerable

[ Page 1181 ]

resistance so long as the public remains uninformed about the reasons for the action and the possible consequences to health of our people if that action is not taken.

In effect, the government will have little chance of moving ahead with social policies directed to reducing this consumption unless the public itself endorses such policies. So this is the step I believe would have to precede the imposition of any external control: a big education programme. This is a thing the province hasn't seen; something that I think the Attorney-General should endorse and perhaps even lead. We have got to create a climate in which steps that might be taken to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, to minimize the destructiveness of alcohol, will be taken in a climate where people have a clear picture of the increasing impact of alcohol on society and the price we are going to have to pay for any future liberalization.

This is a challenge which the educators and the Attorney-General must face. It's an enormous challenge; it is a challenge that can only be met with the full co-operation of the Attorney-General's colleagues. We have to show the people of the province what they can expect if the Premier's proposals for continental drinking catch hold. We have to show them.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would you like me to repeat? Have you not heard a word, Mr. Member?

The problem is that if you introduce the proposals of the Premier you are going inevitably to increase the number of deaths on the highways, you are going to increase your hospital problems, your problems of death by liver complaints, cancer, homicide, suicide. All those things are intrinsically bound up in the proposals which the Premier has put before us when he came back from Europe, when he had that glowing trip.

I believe he put this forward simply because he couldn't figure out any other justification for spending the public's money. He didn't produce any steel mills, and therefore he had to say something which he thought was a grabber. He thought that booze in public would be a grabber and therefore he trotted it out.

He really waxed euphoric about those drinking systems. Yet as a social worker he should probably have been even more aware than I myself, a government civil servant prior to entering politics, would have been. I discovered that social worker he may have been, but his enthusiasm in that area is something we cannot accept on this side of the House without grave reservations.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come off it! What a bunch of hypocrisy! Why don't you wait until my estimates? You're filibustering on a serious subject; you're filibustering.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister not to interrupt the speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Hon. Minister is excitable. But the fact is that the Minister of Health's estimates will come up and we can discuss some of the programmes under his department. It is the Attorney-General who is responsible for the Liquor Control Board. He knows that, and he knows that that man over there, sitting there reading a book, is responsible for liquor law changes.

HON. MR. COCKE: Do you want him to close down the liquor stores, my fair-haired friend?

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I can only inform the Minister, who apparently is very unhappy, that in cases of change of the law, he didn't get the ball; it was given to the Hon. Attorney-General.

Let me repeat for the edification of the Minister the first quotes I gave.

"The Premier told a press conference that he has told the Attorney-General Alex Macdonald about his change of heart and indicated Macdonald will start considering legislation to introduce a European approach to drinking in the province."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was a very good cribbing. I would like to hear it once more.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"The Premier told a press conference that he has told the Attorney-General Alex Macdonald about his change of heart and indicated Macdonald would start considering legislation to introduce a European approach to drinking in the province."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that he has been in order. However, should he get into matters of proposing legislation then I would have to rule him out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I haven't proposed legislation at any point in my speech. I simply made the mistake of quoting the Premier, which apparently has encouraged you to draw me to

[ Page 1182 ]

order. I agree with you that legislation should not be discussed, but the fact of the matter was that the Minister of Health tried to pretend that the question of any change in our law and the administration of the present law which the Premier has clearly given to the Attorney-General should come under his department. The Minister of Health is wrong, and I have no better authority than the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. He is generally wrong and he is wrong again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order. Would the Hon. Member continue, please.

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

If I can return to that particular point, we have to show the people in this province what it is they can expect if the trend to this continental drinking, as proposed by the Premier and as he instructed the Attorney-General, continues. The whole point of my speech tonight on a subject of extreme importance to the Province of British Columbia, a subject upon which millions of our tax dollars are spent and upon which very little has been said so far, is to urge caution, to point out there are problems.

I am not here to give him brand new policies or recommend them to him. I am simply giving him a list of problem areas, pointing out to him that there are difficulties and suggesting that when he finally gets around to working on the commission the Premier of the province has given him to make changes in our policies with respect to alcohol, he bears these points in mind.

It is no joke, Mr. Chairman, when you have the hundreds of millions of dollars that are devoted by our budget to attempt to rectify some of the problems of alcohol and alcoholism.

There is no way that we can measure the human misery that is suffered, and for us not to discuss the subject as important as this at some length is, I think, just ridiculous. We would be derelict in our duty if we didn't do so. I think the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) might well be able to contribute in this debate, either in his own estimates or at the present time. But to suggest that somehow this should not be discussed here, when the Premier of the province has given this man the authority to make changes in our system, is, I think, quite wrong.

To point out the problems of the continental drinking situation, we cannot hide behind the sanctity, if you like, of pure science and simply say that the people concerned in this should simply hand out statistics and ignore anything else. We have to realize that there is something that has to be done in an active way in the educational field. We've got to use communications techniques that are available to us in a most imaginative and innovative way possible, so that we can give the people of this province the information they need in order to make the wisest possible choice about the role of alcohol in their lives.

There is no question in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that without this key component of education, the imposition of any external controls would be quite useless.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't proposed this evening to be a prophet of doom or to just simply outline the bleakness of the situation. But it is my view and my intention to put before you as realistically and factually as I could some of the challenges that we in this Legislature, and in the province, face if we intend to do anything about the deep and disturbing impact that alcohol misuse is exerting on our social fabric.

The use of alcohol has been with us for many centuries, and a great many attempts have been made in the past to bring it under control. We remember prohibition in the Province of British Columbia. We remember prohibition elsewhere in this country; prohibition in the United States. There are still counties in Ontario that are dry — in Manitoba too, I believe. There have been many efforts to bring alcohol use under control and they have failed.

We have an opportunity, I feel, at the present time to start again with this problem and deal with it. It is the biggest drug problem we have. We have taken the first step towards accepting the fact that alcohol is a drug, and the most widely abused one in our society, but we have a lot further to go.

We have made in Canada, I think, progress in collecting and assessing data on the real and potential effects of this drug, and we now have the mechanisms of this sophisticated electronic age to get this information through to individuals. It is only the individuals, as I mentioned earlier, who can ultimately decide, as much as we might think we can in this chamber, only when they are with us can we have decent, intelligent, rational and humane laws with respect to liquor.

It affects every citizen of this province. It affects every one of their children. What we need now is not tourist reports based on three or four weeks overseas. We need some determination by the government to deal with this problem, and to deal with it effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder at this stage if the Attorney-General would like to comment upon how his proposals are going; how his change in law is going; how the commission that he was given by the Premier of the province in the summer of last year has progressed, because there is no problem more pressing in this related area of health and of law than this one. I believe the province is owed a progress report.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, one of the things I would like to have some information about from the Attorney-General is the position of lay judges in the judicial system in this

[ Page 1183 ]

province. I know that at the present time we have a number of lay judges in the judicial process, that is, appointed by the province in different parts and different areas of the province.

Some of these people are very experienced judges in terms of actual service on the bench in the courts. I would say that quite often their experience and knowledge is superior to some of the people who are newly appointed to the bench, even though they may not have the qualifications in law. They certainly have the qualification with respect to the way they process law, and the fact that they can deal with certain types of cases as well as anyone in the judicial process.

Now, one of the things that was brought up earlier today was the fact that there is a greater variation between the stipend paid a judge appointed by the federal court and a judge appointed by the province to act in the Province of British Columbia. It has also been brought to my attention that there is quite a discrepancy between the amount that a judge is paid in the Province of British Columbia if he's a legally trained lawyer and seen service as a lawyer before being appointed to the bench, and the stipend that is paid to lay judges in the province.

I would think that the stipend should be measured and paid upon proven ability, and no other criteria; not the fact that a person happens to have a degree in law or not. If we are going to use lay people, and I think in many cases they certainly do an adequate service to the Province of British Columbia, then they should be compensated accordingly.

I would also like to know the position of the Attorney-General on this matter of an auditor-general for the Province of British Columbia. It would seem to me that rather than a conflict of interest Act, we should perhaps be looking at the matter of an auditor-general. Certainly I know the Attorney-General himself on many occasions has brought this matter before the House when he sat on this side.

There's another matter that I would like to explore for a moment, and that is the oft-stated position of the NDP with respect to the appointment of an ombudsman for the province. In the time that the NDP have been in office they have certainly had adequate time to canvass this whole area and make a decision. Certainly, as members of the opposition they were vocal in the fact that this was one of the first things that would happen with respect to the position of the Attorney-General when they became government — that we would have an ombudsman for the Province of British Columbia.

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

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, I don't exclude any appointment at all; I just want to know the position of the Attorney-General. It was certainly a position taken by the NDP many times in opposition....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It should be open to either sex, shouldn't it? I don't want any male chauvinists over there.

MR. SMITH: I don't think there's any of that this evening, Mr. Attorney-General. I have not even suggested that. I would think that the position should be filled by the person who is best qualified, be they male or female. Certainly I think it would be someone who has senior experience, I would think, in the field of law to operate effectively in that particular position and appointment.

It occurs to me that these are things that the NDP over the years have made statements about. It has been part of their campaign platform, and part of their election promises. I would like to know what the position of the Attorney-General is now with respect to these three items that I have mentioned.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Peace River was discussing the appointment of judges. I'd like to question the Attorney-General, if I might, on a case in my own constituency of South Okanagan: the policy of the Attorney-General's department in the appointment of new judges and the firing of judges.

I refer specifically to the case of Judge Hack who was fired by the Attorney-General. I've been questioned by numerous constituents from the Summerland area over the firing of Judge Hack, and the appeals that have been made on his behalf. I would like a comment of clarification on how these judges are disposed of, how they're fired and how they're replaced, and what the policy is of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking without knowing each case, because we have in British Columbia perhaps 230 judges altogether — I'm not sure of the exact figure. But I have not fired any judge since I became Attorney-General, so your information startles me. I'll be glad to have a look at the case.

You know, there are some areas in the province where we are getting more trained legal personnel qualified as judges to undertake the work. And to the extent that happens, it often happens that a lay judge who was doing that work is not so busily engaged as he was before. Maybe that's the kind of a situation, but I'll be glad to have that checked into.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General: if that is the case, what I would

[ Page 1184 ]

like is an elaboration of your policy in regard to lay judges. These people, the lay judges, when they're fired, are more legally trained people available? Do their years of experience, and whether they've made competent decisions, stand for nothing? What is the formula in this respect? What is the policy?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we fired none. We have offered to a lay judge, in some cases, a new position which of course is voluntary with him. But as far as I know, no salary has been reduced or withdrawn. Now, there may be a few that are paid on the case basis — was this one of them? He's on salary?

MR. BENNETT: My indication by letter was that he was fired. That's what it says.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But he wasn't fired because I can't as Attorney-General fire a judge. If I did, I would be undermining the independence of judiciary which I spoke about earlier, and I can't do that. If anybody says I have fired that judge, I want to look at the case, because that should not be done.

MR. BENNETT: I'm not making the charge; I'm only passing along a request for information as to how you do replace them.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll look at it.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Let's see the evidence.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Member for Shuswap, I'm not providing evidence, I'm asking a question on policy of appointing judges in this province, and any question that's asked, you worry about evidence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition address the Chair, please?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's nice to know, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for Shuswap, after having spent so much time defending the Premier, now feels obligated to defend the Attorney-General. But really all I want is a policy statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I recognize there are good questions, put succinctly and well.

In the case of the judge you have mentioned, I would appreciate having a copy of the letter or a memorandum, and I will look into the case.

In terms of policy, the experiment we carried out in the Peace River country, where we now have two legally qualified judges, have we not, Hon. Member? They have, to a very considerable extent, taken up the work of the lay judges in the North and South Peace. That is a desirable trend, but we have not fired the judges that were heretofore working in that area. I think some of them have been given jobs — and there will be room for them in the court system. That is our policy. That's kind of "pilot" at the moment in that area. We're watching to see how it works, but I'd like to see that probably extended to the rest of the province.

MR. CHABOT: In pursuing the matter that has been raised by the Member for South Okanagan, the Leader of the Opposition, I was wondering if the Minister could tell us what predicates the appointment. What are the qualifying factors? What are the goalposts of the appointment of a judge of the provincial court? Does politics enter the appointments? When a judge is appointed to the provincial court, does his political background have a bearing, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's got to have his card.

Mr. Chairman, under the Provincial Court Act the Judicial Council in all cases receives applications of those who wish to be appointed as provincial judges. I have not appointed anybody that I can think of as a provincial judge who has not been cleared and recommended by the Judicial Council of British Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through the Attorney-General, do you place ads in law magazines, or do you make it any sort of an open application for the job?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, no ads because the legal profession knows that this is one avenue in which they can seek for advancement or public service, so I don't have to place ads. But I have no doubt in the world that the chief judge, Chief Judge Brahan, has probably approached people and asked them if they would consider making an application through the Judicial Council to be a provincial judge. We've actively sought them out.

In the case of a particular name, I can't think of one...possibly just Judge Hart who was recently appointed. David Hart was recently appointed, and he has a particular interest in family law; he's been on the Canadian Bar section dealing with family and juvenile problems. We were anxious that he become the provincial judge and work in the Berger commission pilot project. So that's an example of where he was partly sought, and partly sought the job himself.

[ Page 1185 ]

MR. BENNETT: If the appointment is going to be handled through the Law Society, then does this mean that there'll be no more lay judges appointed in British Columbia, because it's being handled, I guess, by the lawyers' union?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it's the Judicial Council which is composed of lay members. It's the Chief Judge, a representative of the Bar Association — they're both lawyers, of course — and then there's a labour representative on there, and there's a housewife on the Judicial Council. And I think I'm missing.... Oh, and a businessman, Mr. Carl Wiemer — even a businessman, and so, really, it isn't dominated by lawyers. But it's true, the general policy of this government is that we should try to find legally trained people to fill those new judicial posts.

MR. CHABOT: It's quite obvious that the Attorney-General has some influence with the Judicial Council, in view of the fact that he appoints people to the Judicial Council. My question was whether there was any suggestion of politics, and whether his political background had any bearing on any of these appointments. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) suggested, in an aside across the floor, that not since '72 has there been political consideration as to the appointment of judges in the province. I'm wondering when Leo Nimsick Jr. was appointed to the provincial court, whether his political background had any bearing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If the Minister of Public Works said that, he was wrong. I'm not suggesting there were political appointments under the Social Credit regime, and there certainly have not been since I became Attorney-General. And the political thing had nothing to do with the appointment of Judge Nimsick. He was one of....

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He was nominated under Social Credit.

MR. BENNETT: That's not the point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How would you know about it? (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I try not to know the political backgrounds of these people, and for the most part I don't. Sometimes I do accidentally, but I would think a very small percentage of them have been of my particular party.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the point is: because it is handled by the commission and because, as the Attorney-General stated earlier, the word is sort of circulated that these positions are open, then that does preclude anyone from the public sector, other than someone who is a trained lawyer, from knowing when these positions are available or upcoming. So, it is that there will be no more lay judges appointed in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has to do with the general policy.

MR. BENNETT: No, more. I'm just asking.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would not say there would never be an exception....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When the Hon. Attorney-General answers would he use his microphone?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I wouldn't like to say that there'll never be another lay judge appointed. You know some of the lay judges have given great service to this province; I'm thinking of Judge Ostler right over here; Justice Haig-Brown, and others. But our policy is: in future we would like to see judicially trained, legally trained people as judges.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to hear the Attorney-General say he isn't precluding the opportunity for a highly competent and responsible lay person to be appointed as judge because the House responded to your comments.

I think there has been some excellent lay judges in the history of British Columbia. In my humble view, there is a role for them to play. Some of the problems we have are because of the complexities of the legal machine and the legal mind. I think there are instances in court work where really what is needed is some good common sense and fatherly advice.

I would also like to ask a question in relation to one of the answers you made about the selection of judges. It does appear to me, the way you stated it, that there's a tendency for it still to be a closed shop or a grapevine selection when it comes to who is going to have an opportunity to apply to be a judge or submit an application and be chosen. We've seen incident after incident, whether it's in the marketing boards or in the practice of medicine or the legal fraternity or in unions, where those in the metropolitan area tend to have a greater opportunity to be heard and to be seen.

You mentioned a young lawyer who had been active in family court work both here and in areas across Canada. I would put it to you that there are likely some very competent lawyers perhaps in the

[ Page 1186 ]

northern part of the province or the Kootenays who have not become — and I don't mean this critically — political lawyers. They're people lawyers. It would be a tragedy if they were overlooked because they weren't political lawyers. I would really like to suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, that when there is a vacancy the grapevine extend to every member of the Law Society so that they know the vacancy is there and so that any practising lawyer or any qualified person has the opportunity to submit an application.

The Judicial Council, I'm sure, operates very effectively, but my understanding — and correct me if I'm wrong — is that it is basically a metropolitan-centred programme too. I really think we would be missing the opportunity for some very fine people to serve. It would be a shame if this happened on a geographic basis.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the suggestion. I don't accept that completely non-political lawyers are being appointed, because they are. The one I mentioned, Judge Hart, as far as I know has never had any political activity connected with him at all. I don't think so.

You have made a suggestion that I take seriously. Perhaps even within the legal profession there should be some advertising. Now, mind you, it's pretty well known by all lawyers, but I don't see any harm in perhaps just explaining the process in an ad in the Advocate which goes to all lawyers in British Columbia. It's worth thinking about.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to question whether the Attorney-General's considering raising the per diem rates and the expenses for jurors in the Province of British Columbia. I know it's been raised and it's been discussed many times. It's a hardship for those who are called upon to serve justice in this province. Could you let us know your feelings on whether this will be raised, particularly with the change in inflation and the fact that the amounts paid are not realistic now?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't think $10 a day is sufficient and I intend to go to my colleagues on the Treasury benches and see if some adjustment can't be made.

MR. BENNETT: Well, do you have a figure in mind that you're going to recommend? Will there be adjustments for expenses over and above the per diem rate if they have to stay overnight in hotel rooms and for meals? In light of this, while we're on courts, are you reviewing the salaries for these provincial judges we've talked about? Could you advise what the salary scale is and whether there's any attempt to have it tied to the cost of living on automatic increases?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in connection with jurors, they do receive their expenses now. It's the per diem that we want to look at and hopefully have adjusted upward.

In the case of provincial judges, to award them the cost of living would mean they would be so far behind Ontario and so far out of kilter with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where I think some adjustment is about to be made by Ottawa, that that would be quite inadequate.

MR. BENNETT: What are the rates?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The rates are now $26,500 for a judge of the provincial court and $28,500 for a district judge. Chief judge: $31,000.

MR. BENNETT: Are you planning on raising these?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's a financial expense of government and it's our intention that they should be improved.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Very briefly, I was a little disturbed to hear that it may be very much the exception to have a lay judge. The Attorney-General himself mentioned the name of Judge Ostler, who must rank in this greater Victoria community, and I would expect within his own profession, as one of the outstanding judges in this province. It would seem to me a tragedy indeed if in future the judicial system in this province might be denied similar people of the calibre of Judge Ostler. I feel the answer which the Attorney-General gave deserves a little wider explanation.

I don't know who constitutes the Judicial Council, how many people are on the Judicial Council, who are in the process and after all, somebody has to choose them or they have to be appointed in the first instance. Surely their attitude is going to be very important in determining the potential for future Judge Ostlers. I feel that was skipped over rather lightly and I hope perhaps the Attorney-General will just make a little more comment on the potential for lay judges.

The other point I raised earlier this afternoon, and the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) has just mentioned it again: how do judges have any say whatever in seeking a legitimate increase in their income? I jokingly said that I know they wouldn't have a union, but is there any mechanism? If there isn't some mechanism, surely we should give them some access to presenting their own position in the economic sense.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is not a union of judges, but there is a Provincial Judges Association.

[ Page 1187 ]

Since I have been Attorney-General, I have encouraged that association because I think it's important to speak with them about improving the quality of justice, about their contribution to society and to get ideas out through them. That's just as important as when they come and speak to me about salaries or pensions. Both things are important and we do listen to that association which possibly has about 50 per cent of the provincial judges in it at the present time. Its past-president is Judge Johnson. [At the present time it's Judge Keenlyside.]

On your first question about lay judges, whenever we can in the future we will want a legally-trained person to be the one to be appointed as a future judge. I'm not deprecating the great work the lay judges have done, particularly the full-time ones. I would certainly have no intention of cancelling or interfering in the work of these full-time lay judges such as Judge Ostler, Judge Steele, Judge Anderson and so forth.

MRS. JORDAN: I've talked to the Attorney-General about this before. I wouldn't want to canvass it again if it's been canvassed while I was out of the House and press his patience too far. One of the matters that concerns me is the matter of the small debts court. Are you indulging in marital counselling now? Because you've got the wrong family.

I believe we have the highest limit in Canada for small debts court: $1,000. This is working very effectively and there is strong evidence to suggest that the small debts court could be utilized by people even more effectively if this limit was raised. It has the advantage of keeping legal fees to a minimum in the smaller disputes. It also has more of an atmosphere of concern for a settlement than necessarily practising law. I would ask the Attorney-General if he is considering raising the maximum.

Secondly, it has always been my feeling that there's room in the legal profession, without posing any threat to the legal profession, and certainly room in society for what I tend to call the "Abe Lincoln approach" to minor disputes. You often get small disputes in matters of property lines between neighbours on small lots or in matters of a purchase. We should establish in British Columbia this type of a hearing area where you have a responsible citizen. I don't think it necessarily has to be a person who is qualified to be a judge, but one who has a knowledge of the law. When people have a dispute they have the opportunity, before they get embroiled with lawyers and the complexities arising therein, to go before this individual on an individual basis as a family or as two individuals without lawyers to discuss the situation.

This responsible person can examine it from the point of view of whether or not there is indeed a major legal concern or if in fact it is a minor legal concern which, if pursued in the courts, is going to cost a great deal of money, and try and arrive at a sensible and reasonable solution between two people that isn't going to cost them a great deal of money and that probably could be brought about in terms of just responsible counselling.

If the government adopted this it wouldn't preclude their right to go to court if they were unhappy with the decision that was rendered. It would merely be an attempt to help people get together, overcome the emotional aspect that happens when neighbours get locked in a dispute, and also to protect them from the problems that arise once one approaches a lawyer.

I'm sure the Attorney-General is well aware, as we all are, that once one party contacts a lawyer, it is absolutely impossible for the two individuals to sit down and discuss the matter in a calm sensible way. You get lawyers talking to lawyers and letters going back and forth and, really, the only person who is benefiting is the lawyer involved and the federal income tax people.

Finally it goes to court or there is a settlement out of court and the cost involved to both people is far greater than the value of the dispute or the material aspect of the dispute. The value is infinitesimal in terms of the social value between two human beings.

I would ask the Attorney-General if he would give consideration to establishing this kind of approach to small disputes in order that people can see whether it would work. I believe it would.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will do that at this session. The proposed pilot model for the family court includes counsellors so that people can conciliate before they get to the threshold of the court. In the provincial court, small claims division, I think you will see some legislation brought in by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) at this session of the House.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one more point. I'm very pleased to hear your response about this because it is something I personally have wanted to see for a long time. In your proposed legislation — I know you don't want to go into it — this would not be just matters relating to family disputes; this would also include property matters and other such areas.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak at this moment, if I may, about another matter which I think comes properly under this department, and that is concerning the Fire Marshal's department.

I wonder if the Attorney-General is aware that the Sidney Volunteer Fire Department has now been charged with the responsibility of fire protection of the Victoria International Airport, particularly after

[ Page 1188 ]

midnight. They have some other responsibilities during the day but particularly after midnight they are responsible for the entire airport.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us how a volunteer fire department, which, incidentally, is an excellent fire department, can suddenly be found responsible for a federal department, for the federal airport right here in Victoria. I wonder if he could assure us that that department can look after that responsibility, because it is a big one, and that the Sidney community will not suffer if there should happen to be a fire there.

I wonder if he is doing anything about it and if the Fire Marshal's department could look into it. I want to be sure that that airport can be properly serviced. I understand that the Sidney volunteer department is really only required to look after the buildings as such. If there happened to be a fire caused by an aircraft explosion or crash, they are not required to look after it, and neither is anybody else.

There doesn't appear to be anyone responsible for it after midnight. I think it is an extremely serious problem. I wonder if he could give the House some advice and some advice to the volunteer firemen in Sidney.

Incidentally, I also understand that the first fireman to arrive on the scene becomes the fire chief. It is a very serious responsibility that is being placed on these individuals, who I'm not sure are properly trained to handle it.

I'm not sure that the people who are on that property will be properly looked after. And I'm not sure that the people in the Sidney area could be looked after if there was a serious fire at the airport.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the fire protection at an airport is a federal matter because the airports are federal. Now the federal people may have so cut back on personnel engaged for fire protection that local municipal forces and volunteer forces have stepped in to pick up the slack.

If that is the case in Sidney I would appreciate the Hon. Member making representations to the Member of Parliament and also, if you want to make representations to my department, I will have it discussed with the provincial Fire Marshal who has some concern, even though it is a federal area. Based upon what he says we might make representations as a government to Ottawa.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting then, since there are no firemen of the federal government on the airport after midnight, that this responsibility automatically falls on the people who are in the surrounding area to protect themselves? There are no federal firemen there after midnight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the Member should be raising this under vote 29.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Earlier in the discussion here we were talking about the legally trained judges and their salaries. There has been no mention of the lay judges that we still have. I realize that your policy is to phase them out, but what is the salary structure for lay judges?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it varies. You would have to ask a specific question about a specific area, because it varies from $100 a month for someone who does practically nothing to the occasional case of up to $1,200 or $1,600 a month.

MR. FRASER: You indicated that the legally trained judges are going to get an increase shortly. What about the lay judges?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're looking at that as well.

MR. FRASER: How long will you look?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll look at least until April.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to raise a couple of questions very briefly first before getting into another subject that hasn't been canvassed yet.

The Attorney-General was good enough to tell us yesterday his basic posture on the Skagit question, which was that there was no valid agreement existing between the Province of British Columbia and Seattle City Light because that agreement had never been ratified by the International Joint Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hasn't that matter been canvassed already?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm continuing from the Attorney-General's answer, if I may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are being repetitive too.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'm being repetitive in giving the one-sentence reply that the Attorney-General gave me in response to this question yesterday. I don't think that is repetitive, with respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I bring it to your attention. You may continue.

MR. GIBSON: Now that was the essential defence

[ Page 1189 ]

of the Attorney-General. Let us hope that that is the case.

But suppose, Mr. Chairman, that a contract does exist in the view of Seattle City Light. In view of the fact that they have spent, according to their estimates, some millions of dollars to prepare the groundwork for this flooding which we very much oppose, one can only suppose that Seattle City Light does think that there is a contract, or else they wouldn't be spending those kinds of funds.

I have to ask the Attorney-General if his opinion and Seattle City Light's opinion differ substantially. If Seattle City Light goes to the Federal Power Commission and is able to get an authorization to proceed, the Government of British Columbia not having, according to the statement of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), assisted in the preparation of the federal intervention.... Supposing this happens, and supposing the Seattle City Light and Power builds a dam and the waters start rising and come gradually toward the border of British Columbia, and at some point they hit the border, and then the dam is a good deal higher so the waters continue on into British Columbia....

MR. LEWIS: You want to divert the Skagit.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member suggests that we can divert the Skagit. Mr. Member, I'm sorry; the agreement that was signed by the Province of British Columbia commits the government of British Columbia not to divert the Skagit. That's another one of the problems with that agreement.

So the water is at the border and it's coming across the border....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to bring to the Member's attention that there is a resolution on the order paper — motion 21 — dealing with this very subject.

MR. GIBSON: Could you read the motion, please, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you have your own there; you can read it yourself. You are out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Would you give me a moment to read it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I would suggest if you don't continue on something else, I'll recognize somebody else. You're out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish you'd give me a moment to read the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm ruling that you're out of order on that subject. You're not to argue that. If you don't like that ruling, then you challenge the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a chance to read a precise motion on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You may take your seat and read it.

HON. MR. KING: You can rise again. You don't lose your place.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to ask the Attorney-General what his feelings are on the conviction of drug pushers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you raise your voice a little bit? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Attorney-General, what is the feeling of the chief law officer in British Columbia on the conviction — or what sentence should convicted drug traffickers have?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's federal Criminal Code and up to the judge concerned.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Attorney-General, what is your recommendation? What is your feeling on it? It's been said that the majority of heroin....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would bring to the Member's attention that that's not a proper line of questioning. That's a judicial question and really doesn't belong in this discussion. It's a judicial function entirely.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister, I'm sure, must attend federal conferences on a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a proper line of questioning to follow. It's a judicial function.

MR. PHILLIPS: Heroin addicts are here in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got to tackle that in a different way and I think you're well aware of that.

MR. FRASER: I'm standing here tonight to try to get some answers out of that Attorney-General. He hasn't answered anything here for three days. That's why we're still here. We've all asked good questions and we can't get anything but wishy-washy answers out of this chief law officer of the province...

MR. LEWIS: Wishy-washy questions.

[ Page 1190 ]

MR. FRASER: ...such as the Indian land claims. You never even tried to reply to me the other day on Indian land claims. That got squirreled all around and nobody knows where it is, including the people who are affected. The Premier made some kind of announcement today, or somebody else did — I don't know who it was — but it sounds like maybe you're now going to meet with some of these people. That's wonderful after a year-and-a-half of trying to get you to sit down.

Mr. Chairman, this Minister is also the Minister in charge of booze in this province. We've talked some about it but not very much. Well, I'm going to tell you something about booze, Mr. Minister of Public Works....

HON. MR. BARRETT: What do you know about booze? (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: On the accounts committee we find out that you've got a markup on this stuff of 47 per cent. The point I want to make here, Mr. Chairman, is that you're ripping off all the citizens of British Columbia who want to use these beverages. Your pricing formula for liquor is still the same as it was passed by order-in-council in 1971.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's before your committee.

MR. FRASER: Right. But you have been the government now for 18 months tomorrow, right? You promised a lot of things in the election campaign about the pricing of booze. You've had lots of time to change the formula and nothing has happened — except this: the rip-off to the buyer is increased because of inflation. Whether or not the sales of liquor stay at the same level, because of inflation your net profit keeps soaring.

I predict that by 1975 your net profit is going to climb to $200 million. Mr. Chairman, I think this Minister should look into this and certainly reduce the markup in view of inflation. You're just as bad as the federals in Ottawa on the income tax situation You're using the same policy: as inflation rises, you get more of the take into the coffers. I think it's about time....

The other thing on the liquor, you've got so many advisers that we've lost all track of them, but....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: It's you I'm talking about. What about this advisory committee set up? Is that what you call it — an advisory committee to the liquor board? What are they doing? Nothing has happened since you've been Attorney-General — 18 months tomorrow. I can't understand why we can't get some action.

The other thing, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that I'd like to talk just one minute on the expropriation laws. They're scattered all over the statutes of this province. When you were in the opposition you were saying plenty how you'd do things and get them all into one statute. Now nothing again has happened on this, to my knowledge. And our citizens....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I was in the opposition then.

MR. FRASER: I realize that, but you were going to change everything. You've now had 18 months and you haven't done anything. I'm saying, get on with some of these things you said you'd do. As far as the expropriation laws are concerned, our citizens are completely confused. They're not getting proper settlements for land acquired by B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail, Department of Highways, and so on. When are they going to get some satisfaction on these sorts of things?

Now the other item I don't think has been brought up in this debate, Mr. Chairman — and it certainly affects this Minister — is the subject of cattle rustling in this province. This has been getting worse and worse, one of the reasons being the high cost of beef.

I'd just like to read to you some facts that are going on, and again you haven't done anything about it at all. The Minister of Agriculture for Canada said the other day that beef prices are going to advance 30 cents a pound. Of course this is going to further escalate cattle rustling....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does that include rounding up herds for Socreds?

MR. FRASER: On the subject of cattle rustling, it's a real big problem to the cattle ranchers and nothing has been done in your department. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell the Attorney-General — I know he doesn't know anything about the department — but you have a very capable detachment of three men in the Province of British Columbia stationed in Kamloops. They are in charge of the whole Province of British Columbia to enforce the laws that affect cattle rustling.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, no wonder we have an increase in cattle rustling with three officers of the RCMP in charge. Furthermore, the officer in charge of them had charges laid against all the members of the detachment last fall and they've been defending themselves in court. They haven't any time to go out and find the real criminals. I think it's a crime that this happened to them. In any case, they're very dedicated people, but there aren't enough of them.

[ Page 1191 ]

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: You write something down here. He always forgets. When we sit down, we wonder why he's here. He doesn't pay any attention to the questions. I don't know whether he can write or not, but if he can't he can get his Deputy to write these things down. I want to know whether you're going to increase the amount of people on the cattle-rustling detail of the RCMP.

I don't think you realize the seriousness of the situation, Mr. Attorney-General. I'll just read you from a report of what happened in 1973. A report received from the recorder of brands at the end of 1973 stated that during the year 347 cattle were reported either strayed or stolen. Of these only 22 were recovered. This compares with 1972 when 199 were reported missing and 62 recovered. So you can see that....

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we don't need that foreign kind of stuff in the House. In fact, it's against the House rules.

But anyway, we're back on cattle rustling, how it's escalated even from the year '72 to '73. Maybe it's because we got an NDP government, I don't know. But I don't think it is. I don't think it is at all. It's practically doubled. As I mentioned earlier, the price of beef is going to go up further, so we're going to have further escalation in 1974 unless you get some more people on this cattle-rustling detail.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: It is difficult to get the exact number of cases reported to the police, but in the Kamloops subdivision in 1973, 110 cattle were reported stolen, plus six shot and three of them left behind. During 1972 in the Interior only seven cases of rustling were prosecuted: two in Princeton, three in Cranbrook, one in Alexis Creek, one in Vanderhoof. Alexis Creek, I know where that is; that's in the good riding of Cariboo, the centre of all the cattle ranching in British Columbia.

The other thing that the cattlemen object to, Mr. Attorney-General, is that when these people are apprehended and brought before the law they receive a sentence from suspended to a $1,500 fine. In other words, the law is completely inadequate. On this point, this is a federal law. I know that will be your answer.

I think you as Attorney-General should strengthen and stiffen this law. There has been word gone to you, certainly to the MP, to make it a minimum sentence of one year in prison. Probably there isn't much incentive for the enforcement branch or the cattlemen to go and apprehend these cattle rustlers and then let them off with a suspended sentence.

It seems to the cattle people that the main burden of preventing of cattle rustling has been left to the cattlemen themselves. I don't think that is correct.

During 1972, Mr. Chairman, in the 1972-73 fiscal year, the association paid out one reward of $150. So far in 1973-74 they have paid out a total of $2,650 in direct rewards to the informants to the police in an effort to stop rustling. So it is obvious that they are doing their part of trying to enforce these illegal acts.

What annoys them is in the last case — where they paid a $500 reward — which led to confiscation, the man was found guilty and then given one year's probation and forced to pay $250 restitution. They compare this unfavourably with the heavy fines for shooting game out of season — the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Radford's) department over there.

In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, the cattlemen have had to bring in their own enforcement. They are going out on the range to try and take licence numbers down and so on so they can apprehend these people.

Another point, Mr. Attorney-General, is that I can't understand why the government hasn't acted before now in compensating these people that are losing these animals. They have requested this several times. I'm not too clear that compensation should come through the Attorney-General's department, but they certainly are entitled to it. When there is a criminal act involved, why should they have to pick up all the bills?

There was a case in the Kamloops area last year — no, by the way, it was in the Coquitlam area — where a calf was stolen from a 4H club representative.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're not charging the Premier, are you?

MR. FRASER: Well, no, I'm not saying the Premier stole it. Anyway there was no apprehension at all. What I am saying, Mr. Attorney-General, is that this is another law that's not being enforced. It's on the books and it just goes willy-nilly. The cattlemen are having heavy losses and they're going to have a lot heavier losses. I would like to know tonight from the Attorney-General, particularly, if he's going to increase the RCMP cattle deal out of Kamloops.

There is no reason why, with the amount of money that is involved in the province.... We should have three times this many men right away to overcome these illegal acts. There's no way that three men can patrol the Province of British Columbia and the millions of acres of Crown land where these cattle are grazing. I will sit down and hopefully get some answers.

[ Page 1192 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Member has brought up a serious point about cattle rustling, and we will be glad to look at that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, having had a chance to read motion 21 on the orders of the day, I simply can't agree. Let me read it out to you to explain.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, if you're going to deal with that, you're out of order. I've told you that before.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've ruled that that's out of order. You can challenge the ruling, but you are not going to argue the order.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about the duties of the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can talk about the duties of the Attorney-General and you'll be in order.

MR. GIBSON: The duties of the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, relate to Skagit. The government can't muzzle this House by getting one of its backbenchers to put something on the order paper with the word Skagit on it and deny talking about the Skagit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. GIBSON: You talk about legislation by exhaustion or starvation! What we have tonight....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm telling you that you are out of order if you are talking on that subject.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is closure by abuse of the rules of the House. That's what this is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm telling you that you can speak on other subjects, but that's out of order.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, may I develop....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may challenge the ruling if you wish but either that....

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, why may I not raise that motion and describe...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've already ruled that it's out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, have you read that motion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: Would you like to tell me what it is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've told you you are out of order unless you proceed on some other case.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I am asking you to describe the reason for feeling that this motion ruled me out of order...when I am talking about the duties of the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're out of order.

MR. GIBSON: I'm asking the Attorney-General questions as to what is the applicable law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may deal with the Attorney-General's estimates, but you may not deal with something that's on the order paper. I've ruled this out of order and there's no place for you to argue that further. You can challenge the ruling if you like.

MR. GIBSON: I'm saying that asking the Attorney-General what the law is in relation to the Skagit Valley has nothing to do with that motion on the order paper. It's a separate subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a point of order. Would you state your point of order?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) persists in speaking from other than his own seat. If you are going to exercise rules, would you kindly exercise them with respect to that Minister? It goes on time after time after time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Will the Members take their own seats if they are going to participate?

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: The public service of British Columbia puts out an excellent document describing the duties of departments and Ministers. Some of the duties of the Attorney-General are:

"through assistance extended to him by his Deputy and the solicitors within the department, responsible for expressing legal opinions, whether it be to the executive council or to other departments of government on all matters which arise requiring an opinion. Additionally the department furnishes legal advice to provincial commissions and boards such as the Public Utilities Commission and the liquor board."

[ Page 1193 ]

And later:

"The Attorney-General or counsel appointed to represent him appears on behalf of the Crown in civil litigation in which the Crown is a party...any constitutional litigation when the constitutionality of a statute is brought into question."

Now I want to ask him a question. I want to ask the Attorney-General in this matter in what court he is going to propose to seek redress as that water comes up to the border and over the border.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor and if you have anything to continue with, someone else can have it.

MR. GIBSON: If the Attorney-General would like to express an opinion on that now.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't think this is very fair, Mr. Chairman. If the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I want to talk to the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). You have no place in this House to criticize the partiality of the Chairman or the impartiality of the Chairman. Will you withdraw that statement? Will you withdraw the statement?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm chairing this meeting and I am asking you to withdraw that statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the statement and say some other chairman is more partial than you. Now pick that one up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I am asking the Member for Victoria to withdraw the statement. It must be an unqualified withdrawal. You cannot carry on like that in this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, you are the most impartial Chairman we have ever seen.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, there's been a matter resting in the Attorney-General's department for a year and I would like to have some answers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It hasn't been the Attorney-General.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you complaining of being tired. Has the Geritol kid lost all his kick?

This involves a young man by the name of Carlton Andrew Youngstrom II who, as I brought to the attention of the Attorney-General a year ago, is a member of the Timothy Leary drug cult in the United States. Youngstrom himself was listed in several U.S. services as a user of narcotics, and he is listed as a member of this Brotherhood of Eternal Love.

Mr. Youngstrom came to British Columbia just over a year ago and purchased about 320 acres of land north of Lumby in the constituency of North Okanagan. It was a ranch on the Shuswap River. At that time there was considerable concern about the fact that he was an alien with an indictable offence actively against him at that time, and that his offence was in fact the use of drugs, and that he was so closely allied with this brotherhood cult.

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, I brought this matter to your attention, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and when we last left it I had assurance from you that this matter would be looked into.

I advocated at that time that there no longer be allowed in British Columbia the right of aliens with an indictable offence against them to purchase land. If they become Canadian citizens then this is fine, because they can't become Canadian citizens until all charges are dropped or they have served their time.

On that I would like to ask the Attorney-General: where is this legislation? Are you going to bring in legislation to prohibit aliens with indictable offences against them from buying land in British Columbia?

I also want to know what has happened to Mr. Youngstrom. At the time I advocated that he should have fair treatment in terms of his investment, and that those who sold the land should have fair treatment — that this land should be purchased by the government with the option to resell on an auction basis, or whatever way they wished to do it. I see the Attorney-General is looking very confused. You have a number of letters in your department, Mr. Attorney-General, from individuals, and some referred to you by the Premier.

I will just refresh your memory by reading a letter addressed to Hon. David Barrett, Premier, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C., with copies to you. I believe the answer from the Premier was that this matter had been referred to you. It is from the municipal council of Lumby, over the name of Mayor N.R. Pat Duke. March 13, 1973. He says:

"The Council of the Corporation of the Village of Lumby desires to bring to your attention the recently disclosed sale of 320 acres of farmland bordering on the Shuswap River to Mr. Carlton Youngstrom of California.

[ Page 1194 ]

We believe, as a result of police investigation, that Mr. Youngstrom is a member of the Brotherhood of Eternal Love, a drug cult founded by the infamous Dr. Timothy Leary.

"The council feels that on moral grounds the Government of British Columbia should exert its influence in having the sale of this land declared null and void.

"We have no interest in having this matter turned into a political issue..."

Mr. Chairman, I am bringing it to the Minister's attention now to find out what has happened, because we left this matter in his hands. He goes on to say:

"...but feel very strongly that all Members of the Legislature, regardless of political ties, would, support any movement of your government to protect our environment from becoming a refuge to known drug addicts, more especially citizens of alien states. At a regular meeting of council held on March 12, 1973, the following motion was carried unanimously."

I quote the motion.

"That the Government of the Province of British Columbia be requested to use every possible means to declare null and void the sale of farmland approximately 30 miles north of Vernon, B.C. and 14 miles north of Lumby, B.C. to Carlton Andrew Youngstrom of California, U.S.A. Thanking you for your consideration."

Mr. Attorney-General, there was a follow-up on this with more publicity, but as the Member for the North Okanagan region and in co-operation with our council, we left this matter in your hands, with the view that Mr. Youngstrom's purchase should be returned to the Crown.

Mr. Attorney-General, that is what I am asking you. What did you do? Where is Mr. Youngstrom today? Does he still own the land? What investigation did you do?

It might interest you to know that as recently as Monday, January 14, 1974, in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner: "Tim Leary Group Called Top U.S. Drug Supplier." I would like to quote:

"Dr. Timothy Leary's Brotherhood of Eternal Love religious organization has expanded to become the largest supplier of hashish and LSD in the United States, according to Senate testimony released Monday. The subcommittee was told that the drug operations relied heavily on using false passports, many obtained with counterfeit birth certificates and other false documents. John R. Bartells, Jr., administrator of the drug enforcement administration in the United States, testified that the ease with which false passports may be obtained was a factor in thebrotherhood's rapid rise as an international operation."

Another lady at the hearing proposed that consideration be given to national registration of births and deaths as a protection against fraudulent use of another person's identity papers — with the facts and knowledge in mind that these people are all over the province. It goes on to say Leary is serving a 15-year jail sentence.

"Of the top 12 organizers of the brotherhoods' activities, six continue to be fugitives from justice, living on their ill-gotten wealth in foreign countries where additional enterprises can be planned."

Mr. Attorney-General, my research indicated that this young man was not in a working position to have accumulated the money.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I certainly do know he bought the land. It was registered in the Land Registry Office.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney-General, I am asking you what you did about this case. I am asking you what sort of an investigation you carried on. I am asking you whether the government purchased the land, and whether you as Attorney-General know whether or not this fugitive from justice, a Timothy Leary advocate, is loose in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Because somebody has been convicted of an indictable offence and has a criminal record, they should not thereafter be barred from buying land in the Province of British Columbia. We believe in the redemption and rehabilitation of human beings and not putting clogs and trammels upon them for the rest of their lives, and not putting legal disabilities on them for the rest of their lives.

Now whether this man got the land, and still has it, I don't know. If you want me to look into that matter you can send me a letter to my office. But I would suggest to the Hon. Member, since it is in your riding, to take that much time in the House asking whether this Mr. Youngstrom has this land, and not first checking it yourself, kind of indicates to me that the opposition tonight are having a little charade. Really!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the charade in this House is being put on, played by and applauded by the Attorney-General of this province. To stand up here and admit to your lack of knowledge and your lack of interest in a case as

[ Page 1195 ]

serious as this, that was presented to you not only on the floor of this House, but by letters from school teachers, individuals and duly-elected councils, and to now realize that this has rested in your office without any concern, is absolutely unbelievable.

Mr. Attorney-General, you know so little about this case, and you are so quick to play your charade, that you have stood up in this House just now and protected the right of an alien with an indictable offence against him for drug usage, the charge still standing, to take refuge in this province.

I suggest to you, Mr. Attorney-General, that your responsibility, which seems never to get through to you in all of this debate, is not to make British Columbia a refuge for drug cultists. It is to make British Columbia a safe and responsible and reasonable place for British Columbians.

I challenge you, Mr. Attorney-General, and I challenge the Premier of this province who stood here and said there is no legislation, to bring in legislation to this province to protect the rights of the people of this province, so that no one who has an indictable offence standing against him in another country can take refuge in British Columbia and own British Columbia land.

Furthermore, Mr. Attorney-General, unless you are rising on a point of order, I'm not finished.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's immigration.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney-General, don't you know what this whole debate is about? It's about your lackadaisical, slap-happy approach to justice and the rights of the individual in this province.

Mr. Attorney-General, you've got letters on file. I'm asking you what you did about this case. I'm asking you where Mr. Youngstrom is today. I'm asking you whether the government bought that land; and, Mr. Attorney-General, the people in this province want to know.

It is not just the Member for North Okanagan. For you to stand up and put on this charade, and this ridiculous act, can only be forgiven if you will stand up now and answer some of these questions. I will ask you again, Mr. Attorney-General: Have you someone looking into this case? Are you doing something about it? Is this man in British Columbia? Have you done anything to redeem that land? And will you bring in legislation so that aliens with indictable offences against them from other countries cannot buy land in British Columbia until they become Canadian citizens?

You talk about rehabilitation. That's fine. No one wants to hold anyone's past record against them. When their record is clear and they have paid their debt to society, they are free to become Canadian citizens. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Hon. Mr. Levi) knows what I mean, and he agrees with me.

We have a serious drug pattern in British Columbia. People from all across Canada come to this haven that is being built by the welfare policies of this government.

You have the audacity to stand up in this House and say to all the drug pushers and the criminals in the world, "Come and buy land in British Columbia," and the poor old farmer can't even sell his land! You let him — an alien with an indictable offence against him — own agricultural land in this province that he is not even working and you deny our own farmers this right. For goodness' sake, Mr. Attorney-General, will you bring in this type of legislation and will you please tell this House what you have done on this case? And don't tell me to write you a letter. I'm tired of writing you letters!

This department, under your administration, has become a closed book in this province. I've got letter after letter, file after file, with people's problems which previously, under the previous Attorney-General, would be attended to. All we get out of your department now is: "This is a matter that should be referred to a lawyer." It's as if you are boosting, promoting and financing the legal profession in British Columbia.

At least on this case, Mr. Attorney-General, either be honest and tell us what you are doing and have done or, if you haven't, for Heaven's sake apologize to the people of British Columbia and give us your commitment that you will do something about it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should answer a little more quietly.

MRS. JORDAN: Just answer. We don't mind how. Just answer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will. We did have a file on this matter, as I recall. I could be wrong. I will look it up and see if further developments have taken place on that file in the last year, and I will be glad to make that information available to the Hon. Member.

I will also undertake, if I am a private Member or any other Member in this House, that I will not raise a matter as to somebody owning land in my constituency without me first finding out whether they own land in my constituency. Really, I promise I will never take 20 minutes of the House's time without making some check on the matter myself. Okay?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney-General, my estimates are not up. Each time you twist and skate you are defeating your own role in this province. How can we — let alone the public — have any confidence in you when you muck around like this? I'm asking you to have that file brought into this

[ Page 1196 ]

House to review it and give me an answer before your estimates go through. We've had enough of this shilly-shallying. We know that if your estimates go through it will be another year before we will get any action out of you.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): It appears that the debate is lasting a little while and I just want to put my two bits worth in, in that case. There are three points I want to mention briefly and draw to the attention of the Attorney-General or ask of the Attorney-General.

The first one is the matter of habitual criminals. On Sunday I visited the federal institution at Agassiz to visit a person who was from my constituency who is incarcerated there because he is classified as an habitual criminal. I must admit it is a very depressing thing to talk to someone having that status or classification, because they really have no hope in the sense that anyone else has hope. Their whole future is in the hands of the penal system to a great extent, more so than any other kind of person or any kind of criminal.

I would ask the Attorney-General if any review has been or is being considered in terms of the manner in which the involvement of the provincial government or any jurisdiction over these kinds of things that the provincial government might have is being looked at. In particular, have there been as many or more habituals you might say "classified" in the last two years as there have been previously? To me it is the most hopeless kind of situation that any human being could be in.

The second point I would like to bring up is the Liquor Control Board. These are just a few suggestions. I think a little imagination in interrelating the Liquor Control Board with other activities of government would be worth looking at. For example, on the board of directors, perhaps the board could be enlarged to include a representative from the ICBC and one from either the Alcohol Foundation or Alcoholics Anonymous, because both of these have some direct interest in the activity of the Liquor Control Board.

Also, the Liquor Control Board, in estimating its costs, estimates only the cost of actually handling the liquor and the staff and salaries and so on. I would suggest that perhaps the costs for ICBC should also include physical and social damage caused by the sale of liquor. For example, all accidents that can be attributed to liquor as the chief cause should perhaps be paid for by the Liquor Control Board rather than ICBC as, you might say, a social cost of the sale of liquor or as a cost. Similarly, the cost of the wreck of a human being, or trying to recover that human being, should really be a direct charge against the Liquor Control Board rather than against general taxation.

Then if you had a director from ICBC and a director from the Alcohol Foundation or Alcoholics Anonymous, they would take a personal interest in terms of the sale of liquor in the province. They would have, maybe, a little more clout and they might try, say, to introduce programmes to discourage people from drinking so much and from drinking and driving and so on. But the thing is, so long as they operate in a different space and don't communicate much, then one goes merrily away selling as much booze as it can and the other one has to pay for the cost or pick up the damage.

I'm just suggesting that this is one way to bring the things together so the guy from ICBC sitting on the board of directors of LCB would then say: "Look, we've got to do something to cut down the number of accidents caused by alcohol." And the guy who works for the Alcohol Foundation or Alcoholics Anonymous would also say: "Look, we've got too many human wrecks coming into our facilities; let's do something to try and cut down the number of human wrecks." Maybe they would come up with some new, practical ideas. Temperance, I don't think, is the right approach, in the old sense. But certainly we can't be devoid of new ideas.

I particularly appreciate some of the comments made by the Second Member for Victoria in this matter. I'm just sorry that he did it at this particular time when we are all getting weary and want to get on to other estimates, because it was really a very good speech. I thought it had some very good points in it.

The third and final point is sanctions. I think that we haven't come up with any new idea for sanctions since the 19th century. Sanctions are always assumed to be either jail or fines. Surely there must be other types of sanctions that could be developed or devised which would be more modern, if you like — for example, cancelling somebody's credit cards for two years or something like that. I understand that the one thing that people really work to keep up is their credit rating. If they couldn't get credit cards for a year or something this might be an incentive or a better sanction than fining them $1,000 or putting them in jail for a month, because they would want to get back and get their credit rating again. It's just a suggestion.

Maybe we could have a study or people could think a little more about the kinds of sanctions that would work more effectively in this modern world, rather than the old way of just chucking them into the hoosegow or fining them $1,000 or whatever they do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: With regard to habitual criminals, as I recall, there has been one prosecution since I became Attorney-General. It had been commenced under the previous administration. I

[ Page 1197 ]

don't want to suggest for that reason that none will take place while I am Attorney-General, because I have responsibilities under the Criminal Code to look at these applications, but I do have to consent to them and there has only been the one and that had been initiated. Really I was merely continuing a proceeding that was already underway. I won't give the name of that particular case. I would point out to the Hon. Member, though, that the National Parole Board does look at the habitual people as parole cases.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Skeena on new sanctions that might be developed to discourage crime. One of the interesting sanctions he mentioned was taking away a person's credit cards. I would just express a little worry that that might perhaps increase crime by causing those same people to turn to theft to get those goods, I don't know. Worse, they might pay cash, which would undermine our whole economy.

The Attorney-General said earlier that the opposition was engaged in a charade. The only charade going on tonight, Mr. Chairman, has been the charade of a government that, whenever it gets nervous about a particular subject coming to the fore, puts a motion on the order paper about it to try and throttle discussion on it.

We have been talking about drugs throughout this debate. Suppose the Attorney-General got one of his backbenchers to put a motion on the order paper deploring drug abuse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You can't impute improper motives on any Member of the House.

MR. GIBSON: I was making a supposition. It was no imputation of improper motives. Suppose such a motion showed up on the order paper; I'll put it that way. Suppose a motion showed up on the order paper deploring organized crime. Does that mean we couldn't discuss organized crime under the Attorney-General's estimates? It seems wrong to me, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They'd prefer you not to, says one of the Hon. Members. Well, that might well be, but I had hoped that under the estimates we had some liberty to discuss the things that Ministers are responsible for, and that includes the Skagit, no matter what's on the order paper.

Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the major responsibilities of the Attorney-General is the responsibility for the B.C. Energy Commission. Perhaps it might assist in opening up a new area in this debate if I made a few general remarks on energy. It has been the position of this government, which has been largely followed by the Energy Commission....

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

HON. MS. YOUNG: The point of order is that I believe the Member is speaking to vote 36, and not to vote 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. Discussion shouldn't take place on vote 36.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on the Minister's salary vote we have been discussing the entire administrative responsibilities of the Minister and his department ranging over the whole field, all covered by separate votes. Now, surely on that point of order it seems to me that if this subject, which has been raised for the first time in this debate, is raised now, it doesn't seem to me an improper allocation of time on the debate on the Minister's salary that should be taken here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are dealing very particularly with vote 36, and that's when you should....

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with the field of energy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's under vote 36.

MR. GIBSON: No, the Energy Commission is under vote 36, Mr. Chairman. I'm dealing with energy. The Energy Commission surely has a generalized responsibility for energy, and the Hon. Attorney-General reports to the House in that regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn't otherwise fall under the Attorney-General's department so you discuss it under vote 36.

MR. GIBSON: Well, my goodness, Mr. Chairman, if it doesn't otherwise fall under the Attorney-General's department, what's it doing there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is in vote 36. That's when you discuss it.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman's ruling isn't

[ Page 1198 ]

something that you debate.

MR. GIBSON: Well, then, Mr. Chairman, I appeal that ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You can do that. You are formally challenging the ruling of the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm appealing the ruling that says, the first time energy is raised in this debate, and the Minister is responsible for the B.C. Energy Commission, that we can't talk about it under the Minister's estimates.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) wanted to raise an issue which, it was brought to my attention on a point of order, belongs properly under vote 36. I ruled the discussion out of order, and he is appealing that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The question to the House is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained.

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

On vote 11.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was going through the Attorney-General's file today, and on September 30, 1972, an edition of the Vancouver Province was headed: "Macdonald the Load Bearer." This is outlining some of his policies shortly after taking office, Mr. Chairman. I would like to quote from the article. It says:

"Macdonald hopes the cabinet will agree to a full legislative debate on conflict of interest before introducing final legislation on the issue."

Now, the Attorney-General is referring to conflict of interest of the Members of this Legislature, and I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he takes the same stance about conflicts of interest within the government itself. I feel that there might have been a conflict of interest in the Columbia Cellulose deal.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The Attorney-General stated that he would certainly check into certain dealings of an unnamed company here in British Columbia, and that he had to sign an affidavit to an unknown bank to check who purchased unknown shares in an unknown company. What I want to know is: is the Attorney-General going to check into certain unknown dealings in unknown houses in Toronto and Montreal of shares that have changed hands in that unknown company?

I pointed out to the Attorney-General the number of shares that had traded in the three months prior to the government purchasing Columbia Cellulose. He seemed concerned and made certain statements.

I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that of all those thousands of shares that changed hands in the three months preceding the government purchase of Columbia Cellulose, my research in the department of the Securities Act could only turn up one insider report on changes of ownership of capital securities. Of all of the thousands of shares that changed hands in that corporation in the three month period preceding the government's announced purchase of this company, all I could come up with is one insider report for 6,300 shares.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General again, if he will conduct an investigation into the unusually high trading of shares in Columbia Cellulose prior to the government takeover. Mr. Attorney-General, will you assure the House, will you assure the people of British Columbia, and indeed assure yourself?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I answered that question this afternoon, but I will be glad to summarize what I've said. I think I said it to your hon. leader (Mr. Bennett), the Leader of the Opposition. If there is any evidence of any irregularities in connection with that purchase which indicates either leaks or insider trading whereby somebody benefited, I would be very glad to take the matter up, and I will then also go to the Ontario Securities Commission, where the trading took place, and present that evidence to them as well, so that there would have to be a joint investigation.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, I think the very fact that the three months prior to the announced takeover of those shares by the government, and the fact that it has been suggested that they started discussions back in the first part of January, and the change and the irregular amount of shares that were traded on Columbia Cellulose is evidence enough, or indication enough that your department, because your government and a department of your government were involved, is an adequate base from which you should conduct an investigation.

I don't think it is incumbent upon the MLAs of this House to come and collect evidence for the Attorney-General. It is your position as the chief law enforcement officer of this province to detach yourself from the cabinet when the cabinet and this government are involved in tradings or stock purchases of this nature.

Mr. Attorney-General, you are the man responsible

[ Page 1199 ]

for initiating the investigation. The very fact that after negotiations or some discussions started the amount of trade in this company increased by these amounts is indication enough that you should investigate this forthwith. You should have investigated it one year ago.

I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, if that is not sufficient indication for his department to conduct an investigation. Do you want the public or the MLA to the public to do the work of the Attorney-General's department and collect evidence for you and hand you a case on a silver platter? We don't have your authority. We don't have at our disposal the machinery to make an investigation of this nature. It was pointed to you then, and I'll point out to you again that the stock trading pattern indicates that somebody knew something was happening....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just a minute. Are you making a charge?

MR. BENNETT: I said somebody knew something was happening. I say I don't have to make a charge. It's up to you to draw a conclusion and conduct an investigation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're not making a charge.

MR. BENNETT: No, I'm not making a charge. I'm suggesting what any person can see for themselves: suddenly in January the amount of stock traded in this company increased at a very unusual rate. I would think at least that you would be able to tell this House right now at what time the department of government that negotiated Col-Cel started negotiations with this company.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's repetitive, but I have asked the superintendent of brokers — and he was here for awhile — to check over all of the information that is offered in this debate. Your points therefore are referred to him. If he thinks an investigation is warranted, fine, but mere fluctuations in the shares of a company....

MR. BENNETT: That's not a mere fluctuation!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How does it compare with, say, M&B in the same period when the price of pulp was rising?

MR. BENNETT: Nowhere the same.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you don't know that.

MR. BENNETT: I do so!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Anyway, I've referred it....

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General suggested....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Attorney-General has the floor.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've referred the matter to the superintendent. If there's anything that looks like an irregularity then it should be investigated to the limits of our capability and, as I say, we should take any prima facie evidence we have to the Ontario commission, too. But at the moment I see nothing that indicates irregularity. It'll be reviewed.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, do I understand now that the Attorney-General is announcing that one year later he's finally asked the superintendent of brokers to conduct an investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, there's no formal investigation.

MR. BENNETT: But what I'm saying is that now, one year later, we're finally getting some investigation. I'd like to point out to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, that he shouldn't wait one year. He is responsible for initiating these types of investigations without being prodded by the opposition. That's the duty of his office. We would like, because it is at such a late date, to be informed if there is an investigation of this type, and what the terms of reference are for this investigation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've just given you the answer.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition has an excellent point. The Attorney-General is evading the critical question. The critical question is: when did the government commence those negotiations with Columbia Cellulose? That is the one thing that he knows, but which the superintendent of brokers doesn't know and which the Members of the opposition don't know. But, Mr. Chairman, anybody would be a fool — a blind, stupid fool — to think that the people who purchased those shares during January, February and March didn't know something. They knew something which the people who sold their shares did not know. The people who were conned in this deal were the ones who placed their

[ Page 1200 ]

shares upon the market, not knowing what the purchasers knew.

The Attorney-General stood up in all his blind innocence and said: "Are you laying a charge? Are you suggesting something was wrong?" Well, Mr. Chairman, if nobody else will say something was wrong, I will.

I well remember the Attorney-General when he sat in that chair of the House, coming forward again and again with these mystery thrillers about insider traders on the market, how he went after the former superintendent of brokers, and how he laid before the whole House a conspiracy for trading that didn't begin to match the obvious evidence which has been laid before the House by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Attorney-General, you're not clean on this thing until you stand up and tell the House on what date your government began negotiations with Columbia Cellulose, because that's the date when insiders knew what was going to happen. We suggest to you that that date was just prior to the time these shares began to skyrocket on the market. Don't say people didn't make money. Fortunes were made and lost.

It's not enough, Mr. Attorney-General, to say: "I've dealt with this. I've passed this on to the superintendent of brokers." You were the one that attacked a former superintendent of brokers.

You stand up and take responsibility directly yourself. Tell the House and the public of British Columbia today what was the date in which your government began negotiations with Columbia Cellulose. You know that; the superintendent of brokers doesn't know it; the people who sold those shares don't know it. We're entitled to know. You're the Attorney-General — give us some answers.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask the Attorney-General again to advise this House, as have other Members in this House, what date the Government of British Columbia commenced negotiations with Can-Cel to buy that company. That's the question we want to know and we must know in this House, Mr. Attorney-General, before you receive your estimates. We must know!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It was purchased by another department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Purchased by another department! Are you going to prosecute me by another department if I shoot somebody in the woods department? Come off it! You're the chief law enforcement officer and if you're not going to do it yourself, you'd better bring in legislation forthwith to appoint a Comptroller-General for the Province of British Columbia who will have nothing to do with politics, if you're not going to do your job!

In the month of March alone, before the actual announcement was made, this insider trading report started out: "Purchased shares on March 5, 1,200 at $2.90." On March 6 there were 1,600 shares at $2.90; on March 6 there were 200 shares at $2.95; March 12 there were 3,000 shares at $3.80.

There are people in this province, Mr. Attorney-General, who bought shares originally in Columbia Cellulose. I have a letter here from a resident in Victoria. I'd just like you to read the letter, and I'd like you to comment on it, Mr. Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to read this into the record because I want the Attorney-General to give this House some answers.

"Dear Sir:

"Reference: British Columbia Cellulose Company. A few years ago I purchased 300 shares of Col-Cel as a security for my older years. I understand now that the British Columbia government has taken over this company. I shall be losing much of my principle investment.

"When I purchased these shares the prospectus stated I would be entitled to $26 plus accrued dividends in the event of liquidation, dislocation or winding up. Under the government agreement, my preferred shares will be converted into common two-for-one. According to the current market value I shall be taking a big loss which I did not expect to.

"I also will be taking losses on the accrued dividends. The accrued dividend payment of $1.80 includes payment for September 30, 1971, to December 31, 1972. I would like to know why no added payment is made for January 1 to March 31, 1973, and why no account has been taken of the powers of section 3 of Bill 179, which was a negotiated point. I would also like to know the company plans for dividends from March 31, 1973, to June 31, 1973. I would appreciate your help."

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, we had a debate yesterday in which I had the pleasure of referring to the committee the "Sunshine Act" introduced by the Attorney-General when he was in opposition, the purpose of which was to open up the business affairs of various boards and commissions, including actions by the cabinet. The issue under discussion comes right down to that.

In addition to Col-Cel, there is another involvement of this government in the acquisition of shares which has been before this House. This is the matter of the purchase of shares in Dunhill Corporation. Since this was first raised, I went to find out what was available in the public records for

[ Page 1201 ]

Members of this House or for any member of the public to know.

Mr. Chairman, you would be startled to find that all the public knows is that there was a press announcement by the government and by former owners of Dunhill at 3 p.m. on January 10, 1974. On the same day there was a letter to the Vancouver Stock Exchange requesting suspension of the trading in shares. Trading was suspended on January 11, 1974, and trading resumed on January 14, 1974.

Now, that's all that's available to the public of British Columbia and to the Members of this House. Everything else that was involved in the negotiations for the multi-million dollar share purchase is clothed in the secrecy by either the Department of Housing, Department of the Attorney-General or the Department of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member discussing the Dunhill purchase?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm just discussing the general problems. I've finished with Dunhill. I'll never refer to Dunhill again, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

Taking that situation and applying it to the purchase of Col-Cel or the purchase of any other shares with which the government might be involved, let me speculate for you, Mr. Chairman, what must have taken place. At some time a Minister of the Crown must have made an approach to the principal shareholders of a company to discuss the possibility of acquiring shares in a block. That's step number one.

This, of course, would come as a surprise to the shareholders that the government should be interested in acquiring these shares. It would take them some time to recover from that shock, and they would need to come back to the Minister of the Crown and say: "Well, yes, we're prepared to discuss the possibility of the sale."

Now, at that stage the government would have to engage an appraiser, a competent chartered accountant, to examine into the books of accounts and assets of that particular company for the purpose of determining what would be the appropriate price to pay for those shares.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, surely the government would never buy it sight unseen. I would never have thought that the government would do it sight unseen, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There's no point of order. Would the Hon. Member continue? I would just like his reassurance when he says "that particular company" that he's not talking about Dunhill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm talking about any company, Mr. Chairman. I'm just trying to trace the steps that would be taken by the Government of the Province of British Columbia if it were approaching the acquisition of shares.

Now that the Member for South Peace plants this doubt in my mind, maybe a government would buy it sight unseen, but I don't think any responsible business person would do that. So you would have appraisers and chartered accountants who would go into the books and records of a company to see what price was proper for the share purchase. Now, you recognize that when this happens, it's no longer within the knowledge only of a Minister of the Crown and the shareholders of the company; it's now in the knowledge of other people — the accountants and their staff, and the appraisers and their staff....

MR. PHILLIPS: Are these outside the civil service?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, these are outside the civil service. There's no question but that they would be outside the civil service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, I've asked the Hon. Members not to speak from their seats.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And once that exercise has gone through, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Members not to speak from their seats.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Once this activity has taken place, Mr. Chairman, all of this information as to value would come back to the Minister of the Crown and he would present it to I presume the Treasury Board, and some authorization would be made to make a firm offer for these shares. Then they would have to go back to the major shareholders of the company and make this firm offer. Of course, there's no likelihood that those major shareholders are going to accept this offer the first time unless it is so magnanimous that it amounts to an agreement that they couldn't refuse to accept. So that would probably involve some further discussion among the shareholders and their advisers as to whether the offer was appropriate or not, with negotiations back and forth again with the cabinet Minister involved.

I wonder how long all this would take. During all this time knowledge of the potential purchase, and

[ Page 1202 ]

certainly knowledge of the price that the government was prepared to pay, would be outside the control of Ministers of the Crown and the people who are classed as insiders. And people would have knowledge that might be to their advantage to use.

When I think of a case that I can't mention when the public announcement was made on January 10, I wonder how long before that date these first meetings began. Would it have been the middle of December, the first of December, the middle of November...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member referring to January 10 of this year?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: 1974, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then he would be referring to the Dunhill transaction. I am asking the Hon. Member an honourable question. I would ask him whether he's referring in his comments to the Dunhill situation. We must respect the fact that this matter is sub judice.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that. What I'm saying is that if the information suddenly became public on January 10, I wonder how far back we have to go until the first discussions took place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member if he is referring to the Dunhill Corporation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): You just did. Tell the Chairman the truth.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's only coincidental that Dunhill.... Okay, I'll pick another date. Suppose the public announcement came out on December 10. The only question that I pose to the Hon. Attorney-General is: how long before December 10 would these negotiations have begun?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You were told by the lawyer concerned but you are putting on a little show.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not putting anything on the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule, Hon. Member, that if the discussion continues to follow the present vein so that it suggests to the public or to anyone that this is, in fact, the Dunhill Corporation, then I must rule all discussion on this matter out of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm posing this hypothetical situation is this: with this knowledge in the hands of the Attorney-General, surely in order to ascertain that no person came into possession of this knowledge and used it to their advantage, it would require the Attorney-General to make an investigation commencing on the first day that the government made the initial approach with respect to the acquisition of those shares. Now, that's a date that only the Attorney-General knows or can ascertain; we cannot.

Therefore in the case of the Col-Cel share transactions to which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has referred, it's not good enough to say to the superintendent of brokers,"Look at the share transfers over those particular months" mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition when, apparently, some unusual activities took place. But with the knowledge that you have as to when those negotiations began for the acquisition of shares of Col-Cel, you should be instructing the superintendent of brokers to make an investigation into all tradings that took place from the time those negotiations first commenced, to ascertain whether there was a pattern of trading different from what has taken place before, and to make that investigation not only on the stock exchange and through the facilities available in the City of Vancouver, but, with your authority, to make the same inquiry through the stock exchange in Toronto. That, Mr. Chairman, is something that only the Attorney-General can do.

If he recognizes the danger that is created when the Crown begins to move in these areas, he will recognize the need for such an inquiry. Only then will he know whether confidences of the government have been abused.

That's an investigation which, under our present laws, Mr. Chairman, only the government, through the Attorney-General, can make. He cannot deflect the obligation to make such an inquiry by suggesting that if Members of the opposition have particular charges to make they should present the evidence to him. He, and he alone, is in possession of the information required; he, and he alone, can fulfil the responsibility to make the inquiry.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, on the same subject, I'm not being repetitive because it is important. Even last year, finally in March, the leaks about the takeover apparently had got to this House, because a question was asked in this House in advance of any announcement of the takeover. It was asked by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) on March 26 in this House to the Hon. Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) said:

[ Page 1203 ]

My question is addressed to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Now that the Member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has confirmed that negotiations are going on with Columbia Cellulose for the purchase of Celgar, can the Minister now confirm that negotiations have been underway for some time, contrary to statements to the House by the Minister?

The Minister said: "I'll take that question as notice."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What was the date — March or February?

MR. BENNETT: March 26.

What I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, through to the Attorney-General, is that not only did some people know, but apparently by March 26 rumours of the impending takeover had even reached the floor of this House. Now, it doesn't take a genius to realize that when certain persons start buying stocks in unusual volumes, as was happening in Columbia Cellulose in January and February and March of 1973, then somebody or some people know something.

Because it was not just a takeover by two private companies, but because the Government of the Province of British Columbia was involved, and because of the three-month time that this took place over, I think it was the responsibility of the Attorney-General at that time to conduct an investigation. The very fact that this has been raised on the floor of this House was reason enough for the Attorney-General, on his own initiative, with the responsibility of the office that he holds, to have made inquiries into the Lands, Forests and Water Resources department of this province to find out if, indeed, these negotiations had been going on for some time, and if, in fact, the trading pattern was related to these negotiations, and whether negotiations were being carried on by the department, or whether they were being carried on by people not normally under the oath of secrecy connected with the cabinet of the civil service, and whether this was a problem area for negotiations of this kind.

I asked the question yesterday and earlier in this debate, and the Lands and Forests Minister (Hon. R.A. Williams) has been in this House, Mr. Chairman, and it would be a simple matter for the Attorney-General to turn around in his seat and ask the Hon. Minister whether negotiations started prior to January, 1973. You've had two days now, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, to ask this question.

I think now it's incumbent upon the Attorney-General to tell us why he has not asked this question, why he is not providing this information to the House and why we are not getting a full investigation into the purchase of Columbia Cellulose.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Although, as I say, it's another department, I'll try and get the date of the commencement of negotiations. If any evidence turns up that warrants an investigation, there'll be an investigation. I've said that before. I've said I would have to, in the course of that, satisfy the Ontario Securities Commission. They would want some prima facie evidence. So if the Members have something they can draw to my attention, that's fine with me.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, certainly the procedures which a department of this government used to negotiate the contract.... You don't have to go to Ontario to ask that question. I presume this cabinet still has cabinet meetings and that you meet once a week and that you can bring this matter up there. If you don't have cabinet meetings, presumably you meet each other occasionally in the corridor.

Just because the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is hardly ever in this House, you could probably seek him out at his office, because this important information shouldn't have to wait on the pleasure of the Attorney-General to bring before this Legislature. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that it's quite possible the Attorney-General right now could send the message to the office of the Lands, Forests and Water Resources department and ask that Minister when negotiations started, so that we can discuss it on the floor tonight.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to return to this one report of insider trading of all those hundreds of thousands of shares which changed hands in the three months prior to the government making their announcement of buying Can-Cel. This insider report was filed by Charles Lock, who I believe has been appointed a director of Can-Cel — correct me if I'm wrong, now — by the government.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: C.C. Lock?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, C.C. Lock.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I believe so.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, I'd like to point out to the Attorney-General the sequence of this information that was filed, because maybe it's relevant to the situation — very relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevant?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, without dinner and working through the dinner hour and legislation by starvation and exhaustion....

[ Page 1204 ]

Now, this gentleman, on March 5, sold 1,200 shares at $2.90. On March 6, he sold 1,600 shares at $2.90, and on March 6, he sold 200 shares at $2.95. On March 12, he sold 3,000 shares at $3.80. And then, lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, on the next day, March 13, he purchased back 3,000 shares at $3.70.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely imperative that the Attorney-General advise the Members of this Legislature and the public of British Columbia when the government started to deal, started to negotiate, started talks and made the first phone call to Columbia Cellulose. How were the talks conducted? Were they through a mediator? Who was that mediator? Was that mediator a member of cabinet? Was he a civil servant? Was he an outside adviser?

Mr. Chairman, are the appraisals conducted by these outside advisers, if there were any, going to be tabled in this House? Are any of the documents, Mr. Chairman — any of the documents at all — regarding the purchase of Col-Cel by this government going to be tabled in this House? Any of the documents at all? Col-Cel, Callcell — call it what you may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that most of the questions that the Hon. Member's posing would be more properly directed to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, no, Mr. Chairman. No, no, no, no. This is the Department of the Attorney-General; this is the Minister of justice; this is the chief law officer in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd love to continue, because I'd like some answers to my questions so I can continue, you know? If I knew something, maybe I could ask more questions. But the Attorney-General is silent. His silence — what do we say? — his silence is deadening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Deafening.

MR. PHILLIPS: Deafening? Well, deadening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that what the Chair was referring to was the fact that when you were asking about negotiations, et cetera, this was done, I believe, under the administration of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In regard to those matters which pertain to the Attorney-General, of course, the questions are in order.

MR. BENNETT: Point of order. We're asking in regard to an investigation into that Minister. Should anyone that's having an investigation into their own department be counted upon to give the answers to the House? That Minister was asked a question last March 26, and took it as notice and wouldn't give the information to the House then. How can you expect him to give the information now, when his department and this negotiation is under question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the questions that are directed to the Hon. Attorney-General while he is his seat at the present time must be pertinent to his administrative responsibility. It is in order to ask him questions and to make comments, providing they are relevant to his administrative responsibility.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, these questions are pertinent to his carrying on the duties of chief law enforcement officer in this province investigating a negotiation in which the government of this province was involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I posed it as a question. If the Hon. Member is convinced in his mind that they should properly be directed to the Attorney-General, I'm not ruling him out of order.

MR. BENNETT: I'm worried about your mind, Mr. Chairman, and whether you can be convinced.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that if the Attorney-General asks leave of the House to adjourn this debate and go get the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, go to his office, we'll certainly wait. We'll wait. Call him in right now! Call him before the House. Call him before the bar of the House.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did they want him to take over the Premier's chair, Mr. Chairman? Where is the man who can straighten out this dilemma that's before the opposition Members here in this House tonight? Call him before the bar of the House. Where is he?

Interjections.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Members of this opposition are not going to be smoke-screened by anybody making light of this very, very serious situation. We must have some answers in this legislation about the financial dealings of this

[ Page 1205 ]

government, Mr. Chairman, and it is up to the Attorney-General to get the answers for us.

Just saying that he thinks he is going to conduct some kind of an off-the-record survey and see who bought what — and this is the last we will ever hear of it....

Will the Attorney-General assure this House that he is going to conduct a full investigation — a full, impartial investigation? Even call it a royal commission if you want to, Mr. Chairman, a public inquiry. Protect yourself, Mr. Attorney-General. Protect all the rest of the Members of the cabinet. Bring in some recommendations; you might be surprised what you would find when you start checking into this. I would like the Attorney-General to give us some answers here in this Legislature.

MR. CHABOT: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm shocked to see the silence from that Attorney-General tonight. It is unbelievable that we can't get answers from the Attorney-General on this very critical issue in which there is a cloud hanging over the heads of that cabinet and over the heads of that backbench as well over the wheeling and dealing of shares of Columbia Cellulose — wheeling and dealing.

The Attorney-General sits there and smirks and that is all we can get from him. I'll tell you, we are not going to be satisfied, Mr. Attorney-General, until you stop your smirking and get down to fulfilling your responsibilities as the chief law officer of this province.

We hear the cackling from the Minister of Consumer Services. She cackles away.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: She thinks it is funny. Maybe she traded in some shares of Columbia Cellulose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Say that outside; say that outside.

MR. CHABOT: Maybe you traded in shares of Columbia Cel. Mr. Chairman, I'm carrying on; I'm being interrupted.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was seeking to make a point of order and could not be heard. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation that there was any....

Would the Hon. Member state her point?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I ask that Member to withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair was about to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation that there was any insider trading by any Member of the House.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I didn't suggest that there was any insider trading on the part of any cabinet Minister. But that suspicion does exist in British Columbia today.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: That suspicion is there. That cloud is over that government tonight. And it will stay there until we get a full public inquiry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation in his remarks which might be construed in any way to cast doubt on the character of any Member of this House.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not saying that the Minister of Consumer Services dealt in Col-Cel shares. I didn't say that.

But there were a tremendous number of shares traded. In the month of February there were 1,014,483 shares traded.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder you get sued all the time.

MR. CHABOT: When one compares that, when one looks at the tremendous amount of shares that have been traded, one has to be suspicious. How many street shares were traded in Toronto? Through what brokerage firms? Who was the brokerage firm acting on behalf of? Or was it? Or was someone buying street shares from a brokerage firm in Toronto on behalf of someone else?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MR. CHABOT: I say we should get those answers from you, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I asked the Member to withdraw any imputation of any wrong-doing or possible wrong-doing on the part of any Member of this House. He has not yet withdrawn. I would ask you to do so, to withdraw any imputation of any wrong-doing or any possible wrong-doing.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't say there was any wrong-doing on the part of anybody in this chamber.

[ Page 1206 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. All I asked you to do was....

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you seem to be awfully jumpy on this. You seem to be quite touchy. Where is Col-Cel? — in your riding or something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've asked the Hon. Member as an honourable Member to withdraw any imputation against any other Hon. Members. It is a simple thing to do. Would you please do it?

MR. CHABOT: If the Chairman feels that I have imputed motives to any Member of this assembly, I will withdraw...if that is what he has on his mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, withdraw then.

MR. CHABOT: But there is that cloud and there is that suspicion in British Columbia. People are asking who was wheeling and dealing in shares of Col-Cel prior to the signing of the contract? People want to know. People have a right to have the answers from the Attorney-General of British Columbia.

Are you suggesting for one moment that those shares that were purchased through a broker's firm in Toronto were purchased by easterners? No way. All you have to do is check with any brokerage firm as to the financial viability of the firm of Col-Cel. You better be assured that no one would be buying shares of Col-Cel from eastern Canada.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you know that for a fact?

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that that is a fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Members not to ask questions from their seats.

MR. CHABOT: We are asking the Attorney-General. He can tell us if he has a public inquiry as to whether those shares were purchased by British Columbians — and by who in British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: You can find that out yourself.

MR. CHABOT: We want to know.

HON. MR. LAUK: Why don't you find that out yourself?

MR. CHABOT: This government has mishandled this whole affair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you go out and find out?

MR. CHABOT: There are people with a number of shares that have traded. There are people that have made a fortune on the sloppy handling by that government of the takeover of Col-Cel. It is not good enough, Mr. Attorney-General, for you to say that there is going to be a cursory examination by the superintendent of brokers.

MR. STEVES: Tell us who they are. Do your homework.

AN HON. MEMBER: One year late.

MR. CHABOT: We'll have a peek-see; that's what you're suggesting. We won't have a full examination. We need a full investigation — not one which you are going to direct, Mr. Attorney-General, but an independent investigation. I think you owe it to yourself, you owe it to your position and you owe it to the people of British Columbia to act and act now.

MR. SMITH: Very early in the debate on the Attorney-General's estimates I suggested to the Attorney-General that there was a need for legislation to prevent conflicts of interest not only as they might occur when it refers to people in public office and highly appointed civil servants, but as that conflict of interest can occur, very much more so now than ever before, through the interference of the government in the private sector.

I think this evening we have seen ample reason for the Attorney-General to look with a great deal of concern over the proposition that I put before this House when his estimates were first upon the floor, because it is a fact that agencies of the Crown are taking an increasing position of equity and ownership throughout the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COCKE: Tell us about the Socreds.

MR. SMITH: Now let's take a look at Col-Cel, as it was called before the purchase and the takeover and the change of name. There was a great deal said about this particular company and the problems that they were involved in, problems in marketing, problems in...

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I hope you are going to see the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, Mr. Attorney-General.

...problems of supply, problems of delivery of timber, problems that came about as a result of using first-class saw logs for chipping because of the distance the timber was from the actual location of the mill in Columbia Cellulose.

So we have to look at the trading pattern that

[ Page 1207 ]

took place when you think of the history of this particular corporation. Was it a corporation that people would look at as a good investment? I'd say no, Mr. Chairman. On the basis of the information available through the reports of this corporation, they admitted that they had financial problems, great trouble at one time or another, and improper design. Everything had worked against them. Even though they had grandiose ideas to begin with, things did not go as well as they should have.

The normal trading pattern of shares, as has been pointed out before, ran at around 30,000 to a maximum of 35,000 shares per month for the period of 12 months prior to January, 1973. The pattern suddenly accelerated to the point that within the three months prior to the takeover being announced by this government, over one million shares traded in a three-month period. It would seem to me that that is a very unusual trading pattern, a pattern that came about, in my opinion, as a result of persons on the inside having information not available to the general public.

So whoever was dealing for the Crown at that time, whether they leaked information or whether they didn't, somebody knew something. The thing that we have to know, as Members of this House, is: when did an agent, a Minister, or somebody representing the Government of British Columbia, first approach anyone in Columbia Cellulose with the idea of taking either all or part of that operation over? That is the question that we have continually posed to the Attorney-General, and that is the question to which I'm sure, if the Attorney-General does not know the answer, he can get that answer from whoever dealt with Columbia Cellulose on behalf of the Crown.

When did it start? Was it January, February, March, or just a few days prior to the announcement and the suspension of trading of shares ?

Not only does it look like a large profit was made by some people in share transactions in that last three months, but it's also obvious that many people must have lost money in that dealing that went on, buying and selling. Some of those people were probably the small shareholders without any insider knowledge or information as to what was really going on in that operation.

This is why we have continuously, in this debate, brought to the attention of the Attorney-General not only the need for legislation which would eliminate conflicts of interest where the government is really dealing with itself, but also the need for an investigation into this whole pattern of trading which took place in the three-month period prior to the time when the announcement was actually made that the Province of British Columbia would become the owners of Columbia Cellulose.

We've had ample information, I think, to make all of us concerned about that pattern. In particular it should concern the Attorney-General as the chief law enforcement officer.

Frankly, what we want to know, Mr. Attorney-General — and I'll repeat the question one more time — is when an agent, a Minister or someone in the Province of British Columbia started negotiations with Columbia Cellulose with a view to taking that company over.

We want to know what precipitated this great increase in share transactions in the three months prior to the takeover by the B.C. Government.

We want to know if, through inside information, people were allowed to make huge, rip-off profits at the expense of the taxpayers of this province.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, until we have that information from the Attorney-General, we will not be satisfied to give the Hon. Attorney-General his salary.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll just wait, with your permission, until the Attorney-General finishes talking. It may be a long wait.

It's unfortunate that it's the opposition Members that have to give the Attorney-General the information that he could have got by lifting the telephone.

Mr. Attorney-General, I want your attention because somehow, with all this effort, with the words of every Member of the opposition, with the clear story outlined originally by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), with his presentation of facts, with his call to you to have a public inquiry into this transaction, you still don't seem to understand what it is all about.

This is not only concerning the Members of this House and the public; it is frightening in itself that we have an Attorney-General who, by his own statements, as evidenced too by his own actions, simply doesn't understand what is happening in British Columbia and what is at question in British Columbia.

Yesterday, Hon. Members will remember, the Attorney-General got up and said: "What's the difference if the government is playing the stock market or if a company is playing the stock market?" Well, Mr. Attorney-General, we would not only like them to be treated the same — and that is part of the point of the argument — but we would like extra safeguards to protect the public from big government, and that is why we want this inquiry, Mr. Attorney-General, if you'd stop talking and listen. That's why we want the inquiry. We want you to clear the cloud that is over your head and your government's head, and we want this inquiry to bring forth regulations through which the government would operate as it dashes from here to there in the stock market.

[ Page 1208 ]

The fact that the Attorney-General makes these facetious remarks after he'd made a presumably serious statement in this House that he doesn't know the difference, doesn't recognize the tremendous power and impact that government has when it enters into the market, is, as I mentioned, frightening.

You know, Mr. Attorney-General, when individuals play the stock market, presumably they do so with their eyes wide open, and they don't do so with hard-earned money that they need today. They do it with their investment money or with their fun money. They know that there is insider trading, and this is a part of the risk that they take.

But, Mr. Attorney-General, when people pay their taxes, that is hard-earned money, and that is money that they willingly, as long as it is fair, give to the Government of British Columbia, in order to provide services to people and provide money to administer our province. They don't give it to the government with a view to letting amateurs play games on the stock market — amateurs who have never had any business experience, and amateurs who have proved over and over by their statements in this House that they don't understand the complexities of the market.

When government goes in, Mr. Attorney-General, the people expect fairness and results. They don't expect the government to promote fortunes to a favoured few and massive losses....

Would the Attorney-General please listen? Perhaps he would understand what the problem is. Furthermore, he seems to be learning a lot of bad habits from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney-General, it is just the taxpayers who don't like paying for $200 canapés and hors d'oeuvre. If you are using the Minister of Human Resources as your financial consultant, I'd suggest you are on the skids.

Mr. Attorney-General, government and government money is not for the manipulation of the stock market, and it's not for the promotion for the wealth for a few and the stripping of hard-earned savings and resources of many. All you can give us are weak smiles and a shrug of the shoulders and this lame-duck suggestion that you might have a lame-duck investigation.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) brought to your attention — and was the first to bring to your attention — the need to know the date of your initial transaction, or the government's initial transaction with this company, or a representative of the government's initial transaction with this company. You've had days and days and days, Mr. Attorney-General, to make that information available. Why haven't you? You haven't given us one reason why you won't reveal this information. What are we and what are the public to assume?

You're condemning yourself, Mr. Attorney-General, by silence. Your Members are condemning themselves by their obvious sensitivity to this subject. And they react very strongly every time what is in the mind of the public is brought to their attention.

Mr. Attorney-General, truth in government is at issue in the last three debates that we have had. We have not had one satisfactory answer. The whole integrity of this government, the Premier of this province and yourself is crashing down around your ears. It's there in the words of the Egg Marketing Board. It's there in the words of the poultry board.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, because I reflect the concerns of people, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). I'm not orbiting around in a lot of fat volumes of weirdo reports. I'm trying to express to you the concerns of the people of this province.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Ah! I'm glad the Minister of Health says he hears those concerns, because he is the first Minister in all these debates who has admitted that he hears the concerns. You should talk, Mr. Minister of Health, to the Attorney-General and tell him what the people are saying, and ask him to clear the cloud that's over your head and is, in fact, jeopardizing your effectiveness....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to return to the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Attorney-General will turn his attention to his administrative responsibilities, because integrity is crashing around his head.

There's the abusive language of the Premier in his hall against the Fourth Estate. There is Plateau Mills. There is Dunhill, which I won't talk about, Mr. Chairman, because it is before the courts. It is interesting to note — and there might well be a parallel — that initially the government denied that there should be any concern about the Dunhill transaction, but it is now before the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have requested the Hon. Member to return to the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General.

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman, but you keep interrupting me.

[ Page 1209 ]

In Columbia Cellulose, there is considerable evidence; there is a lack of statement of fact by this government that all leads to a further cloud on this government and it leads to one more straw in this bundle, in this haystack of integrity that is crashing around this government's head.

Your government, Mr. Attorney-General, made a very rash dash into the stock market. Anyone can make a mistake on the stock market but, Mr. Attorney-General, you don't seem to learn and your government doesn't seem to learn from your mistakes. You show no evidence that there are affidavits against you, there's a court case going on, there are accusations and charges around this province against you by serious and responsible people. Still you make further rash clashes into the market. The rumours are out now, Mr. Attorney-General, of other takeovers that you are contemplating.

We have to ask, Mr. Attorney-General, and you should answer for the sake of your own Members and the government: who are those nameless, faceless traders who made money?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) accusing me of buying Columbia Cellulose shares?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister of Health, I hope the people of British Columbia hear that you called the government contributes...tradings on loss of Class A share profits, loss of savings by small people in British Columbia a bunch of junk. Oh, Mr. Minister of Health, the only junk in this room is at the head of the Health department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the phrase suggesting that there is junk at the head of the Health department. I think it's an unparliamentary statement.

MRS. JORDAN: It is very good-looking junk, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the Minister of Health suggested that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) uses junk. Withdraw that imputation!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Health if he would take a look at standing order 17(2) and not interrupt the Hon. Member when she is speaking.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney-General, in February there were 1,014,486 shares of Col-Cel traded. Who purchased those shares? Who were those nameless, faceless people? Because you will not answer these questions, Mr. Attorney-General, because you will not hold inquiries, because you will not give the date of your initial transaction, you are raising in people's minds suspicions about these people. People can't help but ask: "Were they friends of the government? Were there public institutions acting on behalf of friends of the government, or perhaps even Members of the government?"

Your inaction, your deafening silence, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, is what is raising these questions. You must answer, Mr. Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General got up, after days and days of prodding and probing and demands by the official opposition and other Members of this House that he have a public inquiry, and said that he was having an off-the-record investigation. Mr. Chairman, I suggest through you to the Attorney-General that this is one of the major concerns about your government, and that is that too much government business is going on off the record. Too much government spending is going on not within the estimates as they are described in the book that we are debating tonight, but off the record.

There is the business of this government — 50 per cent of it going on off the record and behind the closed doors of this cabinet and out and beyond this cabinet. That is the concern, Mr. Attorney-General.

It's not only your position today, and it's not only the position of the Premier — and it's very difficult now to call the Premier the Premier. These are time-honoured positions and they'll be here long after we're all gone from this chamber and from this earth. The conduct of you as Attorney-General is what is going to influence the honour those positions hold in the future.

So, it's not only, Mr. Attorney-General, a matter of maintaining the reputation and the integrity of yourself and your Premier and your Members, maintaining and clearing the reputations....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The suggestion that the integrity or the name of the Members of this House need to be cleared has an imputation. I would ask the Hon. Member to avoid any suggestion or imputation that there is any wrongdoing on the part of Members of this House.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, this is part of the debate. This is what the public are concerned about.

[ Page 1210 ]

This is why we're asking for an impartial public inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is quite a large step, though, from the evidence that has been presented in this House and the imputation that Members of this House may be guilty in some way of wrongdoing. I would ask the Hon. Member to avoid suggestions of that nature.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, again, if this is what is on your mind and the cap fits and you're wearing it, then I certainly withdraw any inference. But we say again that it's not just us that are concerned, Mr. Chairman; it's the people out in this province. It's people outside this province. The very reputation of British Columbia as a responsible area in terms of government, in terms of investment climate, in terms of a place to live, is at stake with these clouds that are hanging over this government now.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, we are debating now, and that is why we are asking you, through you to the Attorney-General, to lift this cloud.

If the Attorney-General is innocent, and I believe he is, and if the government is innocent, and there is nothing wrong in the trading, then you have nothing to lose.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm pleased you are listening, Mr. Attorney-General, and I would ask you: will you clear the name of British Columbia? Will you restore and maintain honour in the position of Attorney-General and in the chair of the Premier of the Province of British Columbia? Will you reveal the date that we must know? Will you have a public inquiry into the trading in Columbia Cellulose? And will you give this commitment tonight? That's what we're asking, Mr. Attorney-General.

It interests me that I sat on the other side of this House for a number of years and heard the Attorney-General stand up as the great champion of the little people of this province — the great champion of right in this province. When he became Attorney-General, while I didn't agree with his political views, I thought, well, there is one man in that cabinet who will honour the position he holds.

Mr. Attorney-General, you're going to go down in history as the idiot that waved to the balcony during debate and you are going to go down in history as an Attorney-General who was so preoccupied....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the word "idiot" as applied to the Attorney-General. I think it is unparliamentary.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, yes. I wouldn't want to call him an idiot, Mr. Chairman. He just acts like one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The whole point, Hon. Member, is that we are to treat each other in an honourable manner in this House.

MRS. JORDAN: Hear, hear, Mr. Chairman! I'll agree with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask just that you treat the....

MRS. JORDAN: I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

But it is this double standard that concerns us, too. Mr. Attorney-General, your place in history, if you continue the way you are going now — and I know it is important to you — is going to be short, and you're going to go down in history as an Attorney-General who was so preoccupied in trying to restructure the law and the technicalities of the law that he completely forgot that the law is for the service of the people and for the protection of people in British Columbia.

There's no point in having new laws in British Columbia if they're for the sake of their theory, if they're not enforced, and if they don't protect the rights of the individual — the everyday citizen.

Mr. Chairman, I ask once more at this point: will the Attorney-General...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members...?

MRS. JORDAN: I don't know how a man of the cloth could be a part of a party that is conducting itself the way those Members.... The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) accused his own Ministers of untruth.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: That is right. It's in Hansard. Would you ask the Hon. Members who accuse their own Ministers of not telling the truth to stop interrupting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I only wanted to make the point of asking the Hon. Member to please address the Chair and not to get into a dialogue with Members of the House. The Hon. Member may continue.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm nearly finished. You're just so dazzling looking that I can't feast my eyes on you forever. (Laughter.)

[ Page 1211 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're just to have to stop meeting like this. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: Well, at least, Mr. Chairman, we're setting an example because there's nothing under the table. (Laughter.)

I would repeat again, Mr. Attorney-General: will you have a public, impartial inquiry for the reasons that all of us have outlined? Will you give the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) the information that he has asked you for days ago, and set this matter at rest once and for all?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there is an issue before us which I think is pretty important, and that is whether the Attorney-General is properly carrying out his duty as the first law officer of the Crown. Now, I looked at a number of texts — Kish's Law Relating to the Attorney and Solicitor- General of England, British Cabinet Government by Lowenstein, Cabinet Government by Jennings — and they all point out one thing: the position of the Attorney-General is different from that of other cabinet Ministers: he's the first law officer of the Crown; he's the conscience, if you like, of his cabinet colleagues.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I took lectures from Jennings at UBC.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Tremendous. Delighted to hear it. We checked with the UBC Law School and they were astonished by your remarks about affidavits, Mr. Attorney-General. Perhaps you should go back there and take a few more lectures. Let's ignore what lectures you took, because apparently you've forgotten some and remembered others.

What all these texts indicate is this: the position is different from that of the ordinary cabinet Minister. The office carries with it responsibilities for independent action quite different from that of other cabinet Ministers, quite different from some Ministers who must, or should indeed, have direction from the Premier or some who are responsible to the cabinet in the way of cabinet solidarity.

The Attorney-General is something separate. For this reason, for many years in Britain they often were not members of the cabinet itself. They were outside the cabinet.

It is an important thing to remember, because this question that my hon. friend for Vancouver–Point Grey discussed yesterday and I will be discussing further tonight is not a question of simply another cabinet Minister protecting his brother or sister cabinet Ministers; it is a question of the Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia properly carrying out his duty to enforce the law of the land in an impartial, non-partisan way.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the question was asked by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), and he was talking about an agreement dealing with Sy Kovachich and the Egg Marketing Board: was that agreement authorized under the law of the Province of British Columbia, which the Hon. Attorney-General has a duty to enforce, or was it not authorized under the existing law of the Province of British Columbia?

The Attorney-General rested his defence, if I can use the legal term, on the following statement. After Mr. Gardom, the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, had stated that a settlement has to be in accordance with the law, the Attorney-General came back and said:

"Well, I don't know. Now if the egg board lawyer is having trouble enforcing levies or fines in the Fraser Valley, the north, the south, or the east, I would presume that he would seek a court test, if they chose to go that way. That's the kind of decision that should be left to the board.

"Nobody has approached me. The lawyer advising the egg board hasn't approached my department and said: "Give us an opinion." I presume he doesn't need my opinion, because I can't say how a court test would go in any particular situation. That's for the courts. They are free to take a court test if they want to have their powers defined and clarified, by all means."

The Attorney-General tonight nods his head. Well, Mr. Attorney-General, we agree with that statement. But the statement, while a good statement in terms of principle, ignores the facts. The Egg Marketing Board of the Province of British Columbia intended to have a court case to test their powers under the B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act. It intended to have a court case as to whether their levies were legal and should be authorized and should, indeed, be enforced. And they were told, according to the affidavits, that "there will be no court case against Sy Kovachich," and they were told this by none other than the Premier of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He denied that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Attorney-General shakes his head. He denies that. We'll get on to that in a moment.

The fact of the matter is, however, that a court case which was talked about, and which the Attorney-General has just told us was denied by the Premier, did not take place, and the claim of the egg board is that it did not take place because of improper influence on their operations. This was stated by the chairman of the egg board and it is an important point. This is why we feel that while the Attorney-General's statement of principle may be

[ Page 1212 ]

accurate, it ignores the facts, as stated in the affidavits, as filed with this House, and as brought to the attention of the Attorney-General by Members of the opposition.

A settlement has to be according to law, though, was the question. "Well, I don't know," was the reply. "I would presume that he would seek a court test, if they chose to go that way. That's the kind of decision that should be left to the board." The words of the Attorney-General. Now, was it left to the board?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I presume so.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Attorney-General presumes so, and I'm glad he made that statement, because I think it is a very important one.

"I presume he doesn't need my opinion, because I can't say how a court case would go in any particular situation.... They are free to take a court test if they want to...."

Well, they were not free according to their own statements. Now, this is the issue that really is most important to us. They were not free to do that because they claim, rightly or wrongly, that improper influence was used to prevent the very type of court case which the Attorney-General suggested should take place.

So that's the point at issue. The egg board, according to the affidavits, did not proceed with the lawsuit. As the A-G states, they should have, because the board was interfered with. They did not, because the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Premier interfered with the due process of justice, according to the affidavits filed in this House.

My question to the A-G is this: under the circumstances of these allegations raised by every Member of the opposition, raised during the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture in the estimates of the Premier, and the estimates of the Minister of Finance....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the present administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The point I'm trying to make is that he had independent authority and an independent duty to enforce the law in British Columbia. When these things are raised before him — and I have indicated how they were raised before him — it's his duty to enforce the law, have an inquiry and discover the truth, or otherwise, of these statements.

I am in no way wishing to re-argue what I have stated before the Minister of Agriculture during his estimates, or those of the Premier, or those of the Minister of Finance, but simply to point out that the Attorney-General has this separate duty to enforce the law. It is not dependent upon him being instructed to do so by the Minister of Agriculture — that's why we won't be discussing that part of it — or the Premier — and that's why we won't be discussing that part of it.

It's just the third issue: the issue of the Attorney-General's separate and independent responsibility to enforce the law when breaches of the law are brought to his attention by affidavit. There is prima facie evidence that breaches took place. These affidavits from the people at the head of the egg board are prima facie evidence of breaches of the law by the Premier and Minister of Agriculture.

I don't know what the reasons are for him not enforcing the law. I don't know what the reasons are for his refusing to go out and carry on his independent duty, and I don't know what the reasons are for him protecting his brother cabinet Ministers from legitimate inquiries which he on his own initiative should have launched at that time.

I'd like to at this time comment upon possibilities. There are many possibilities for this. Perhaps he doesn't want to proceed because he himself has knowledge which he has not revealed to this House and should reveal to this House on this case — knowledge perhaps of incorrect behaviour on the one side on behalf of Brunsdon, McAninch, Unger and Stafford, or on the other, the two other gentlemen I named. I don't know why that is.

I would just like, Mr. Chairman, to quote the remark that the Attorney-General himself made earlier this year. He made it on February 25, after this very issue had hit the newspapers. I quote him in Hansard at page 505:

But really, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter we are dealing with of real substance. I don't think we can afford, as legislators or as municipal councillors, to have even the suspicion of government by influence peddling, or government by crony. I think even the MLAs that are here today must agree that they have to be like Calpurnia, above suspicion. We had the inquiry into Surrey a short while ago, and the commissioner, Donald White, had this to say. He spoke of "the necessity for complete disclosure and candidness at all times where one conducts even private business in the open. When such a person is a public official, then suspicions are allayed."

That quote was from the Attorney-General on February 25 of this year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I love to hear my speeches read back to me.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Attorney-General apparently likes to hear his speeches read back to him. I'll give him then another quote. It was on

[ Page 1213 ]

November 9, 1973, in the Daily Colonist, Victoria, B.C.:

"Cabinet Ministers should 'bare their souls a little more' when asked questions in the Legislature by opposition MLAs, Attorney-General Alex Macdonald said Thursday. He was commenting on the exoneration earlier this week of Transport Minister Robert Strachan in a 6 to 4 committee vote on charges by Bob McClelland (SC — Langley) that Strachan lied to the House.

"'I've got a couple of thousand employees in big branches of government. I don't know everything that's happening,' said the Attorney-General during taping of the television show 'Capital Comment,' to be shown Sunday.

"'I think I'll have to be more cautious, and if I don't know the answer to something I'll have to take that as notice and read the answer back the next day. I think it sounds a little like chickening out, but I think it has to be done, and I think we've got to be careful to give the whole truth to answers to questions and not spare too much.'"

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Did I say "chickening out"?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The words used were "a bit like chickening out."

Mr. Chairman, I read those two quotes because the subject is important and I can quote no better authority of the need to be above suspicion than the Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia. It is he himself who has made these statements, and he himself is that vigorous prosecutor — or I should say that vigorous terrier — to make sure that all is exposed when it comes to municipal officials, and he has so signally failed to act in the case of these affidavits on which as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, he has an independent responsibility quite independent of his cabinet position to act.

Now, I don't know what happened to the A-G in the past few days and the few months since those statements were made. I don't know why the man who wished to let the sunshine in in past years is not vigorously trying to do it now. I don't know; I ask him what change has come over him.

I'd like to ask, Mr. Chairman, what has been the attitude of the Attorney-General and the government on what I ask. I have quotes here of statements made that "clouds over this chamber are darker and more ominous than before." This opposition Member made a plea for a full judicial inquiry and said the "opposition has been completely vindicated in the matter over recent weeks." Those quotes were from the former leader of the CCF, Mr. Arnold Webster, during the Sommers debate, and they are as true today as they were then.

You must remember, Mr. Attorney-General, that it took two years of prodding the then Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, who in my view was derelict in his duty for his failure to act in the Sommers case more quickly, to get response, to get something set up. Indeed, it took actions which are well known to this House by the father of the present Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you making a charge of a criminal offence?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Attorney-General, you had better go back and examine the records of those years. There was an inquiry brought forward at that time. It was cancelled by the then government. They then had an affidavit and pieces of evidence. They finally got the thing before a court.

I do not know whether this case is identical in all respects with that of the Sommers case. I only know that the weeks at the beginning of this case are the same. The statements made in the Legislature....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not the case. The Sommers case, as I recall it, was bribery under the Criminal Code of Canada, an indictable offence, and now you're saying that there is some case around this Legislature that is the same. Would you please name it? Who might be guilty of such a criminal charge or a criminal charge of any kind, and what is your evidence? If not, for heaven's sake stop your mud slinging!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, my quotes are from 1956.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right. You won't answer the question. Is that right?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General can sit in his chair and listen until I finish my speech. My quotes are from '56 when the first comments about the impropriety of the Minister came forward, and it was not known at that time what the ultimate conclusion was. I am simply giving him the attitude of his former party, the CCF. I'm giving that at a time of their attitude towards charges made which the government refused to examine. It's not a question of saying that guilt is the same, and you know that, Mr. Attorney-General. There was no charge at the time that these quotes were made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Shall vote 11 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly not! Mr.

[ Page 1214 ]

Chairman, I haven't finished my speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would make a point of order. I thought the Hon. Member was finished, but I would just make a point of order that by parallel....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out that it's possible, unintentionally perhaps, by parallelism to make an allegation of dereliction of duty.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have in no way suggested that this case will wind up the same way as the Sommers case did. I have not quoted from anything approaching the lawsuit, which took place years later, than the quotes that I am giving you. The quotes are from the Attorney-General of the day.

"He told the Legislature he could not accept that any assertion would come before him as the basis for establishing a commission of inquiry. 'Under these circumstances neither a commission of inquiry nor the machinery of criminal law is to be set in motion,' the Attorney-General said."

Now, are we not hearing much the same line now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm pointing out as a point of order that by parallelism it's possible to infer or imply or impute that the present Minister is guilty of dereliction of duty. I'm just asking you to avoid any such imputation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your correction.

I would point out that in '56 Arthur Turner said: "If you're in the clear you have nothing to worry about, nothing to hide."

I believe that in 1956, when the present Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said the Attorney-General was entirely remiss in his duties — a quote that was accepted by the House — perhaps he was accurate. I think the situation that we have today where no steps are being taken is just like the previous case. I don't know what the consequences will be, but initially the same problem exists — a government and an Attorney-General that would not, and in this case continues not to, authorize an examination of the records by an independent, non-political, non-partisan judge.

Mr. Chairman, I give you these quotes because in the initial stages, at least, there is a parallel — a government, charges have been made, charges by affidavit by responsible men....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What are the charges?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know the charge of the Brunsdon case, and I'll go into that in just one moment if you wish me to. I'll go right through it again. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure, in the light of your ignorance of the charges, will not rule me out of order.

Anyway, Webster in those days said:

"We have the right to know that statutory declarations presented to the Attorney-General in good faith by citizens are dealt with expeditiously and without fear of favour."

That's a quote from him back at that time in 1959.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll ignore those if you feel doubtful about the propriety of quotes, Mr. Chairman, from the Sommers case. I give them from this point of view only, and I again repeat the importance of distinguishing between the consequences — what ultimately happened in the court suit — and the initial charges of impropriety which were ignored and ignored and ignored — ignored, indeed, for two years. What I am saying is there is the opportunity to as the CCF of those days, when they wished the government to act. The opportunity is here now when serious charges have been made to clear it up by a non-partisan, sensible, dispassionate man, a judge, who can deal with the whole situation and dispose of it.

This is the request we have made week after week in this Legislature and we have never, never, never had any real success with the government in persuading them that an inquiry is necessary. I only quote the Sommers case because of our desperation. The parallel is exact in the initial stages. I know not what happens after that, but the parallel is exact in the initial stages.

Who are the people who constantly pressed this? Well, there was Brown; there were Liberals; there were, of course, however, Webster, Turner, Strachan, and other Members of the old CCF. I don't know what happened to the NDP when it changed it's name, but I am sure that were those men, as they were then, sitting here today, they would be asking for an inquiry to settle this matter, because there have been charges made which are serious, and these charges have not been adequately rejected by the government Members.

I can't repeat again the charges, in particular from Webster, who took a prominent role in this, but I think it's important to remember in those days, before there was any question of a criminal problem, when it was just a question of doubt and question of affidavit, at that time it was the CCF party, since dead, I guess, replaced by the NDP, which insisted,

[ Page 1215 ]

along with us, that a proper inquiry should be held. And that's what we are doing today — asking for that. That is what we have been doing for a very, very long time.

I personally feel that the Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, was remiss in his duties by failing to take adequate steps early enough, and I think that this was shown by subsequent events. I believe that unless the Attorney-General takes steps in this case, he also will be remiss in his duties in precisely the same way, because there is adequate evidence before him for him to take seriously and for him to look into.

Mr. Attorney-General, you may not feel it's all that serious, but I would remind you in the case of the Social Credit in 1958 when things developed to that point, a man by the name of Mel Bryan had the guts to get up and resign.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What charge are you making? Will you spell it out so we can get along with it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just relax. You've had information brought before you day after day of impropriety in the handling of the Egg Marketing Board and influence being used. You know that. Don't give me this righteous anger bit, Mr. Attorney-General. I'm trying hard to control my anger and I trust you'll do the same. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's a simple expedient, Mr. Minister of Labour, to clear the name of the government. It's called a judicial inquiry. Why won't you have it?

But back to Mel Bryan. What did he give as his reason for resignation from the Social Credit Party?

He said: "...a lack of ability to fulfil all the requirements of his (the Attorney-General's) high post and he should resign his duties in favour of someone else." It's important, I think, to look at this. Mr. Bryan began by stating that the government's handling of the Sommers case had been causing grave concern to people throughout the province, as indeed has this case in its initial stages.

"The chain of subsequent developments led to charges, which are now being adjudicated, where thousands of British Columbians felt they should have been adjudicated a long time ago.... I speak for myself and, I believe, for thousands of people who supported this government in expressing the solemn belief that the Attorney-General of this province has failed to carry out his duties with the speech and efficiency that his position demands. Here was developing a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with without any concern for political questions or partisan loyalty.

"I insist that the manner in which the Attorney-General failed significantly to to deal with an issue involving a cabinet Minister and the government itself has placed a serious strain on the respect and support that this government had generally deserved."

When the vote came on the Attorney-General's estimates, in '58, there were three Members of the Social Credit Party who had the guts not to vote for them. They were Cyril Shelford, Reg Sharp and Irving Corbett. They left the House so as not to vote. Why? Not because of the subsequent events, not because of the conviction of Sommers, but because they felt an inquiry should have been held early. They felt that was the duty of the Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you saying there's an indictable offence?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'd better check your history, Mr. Attorney-General. The whole thing went on two years, and initially all that was asked for was inquiry, and it was consistently denied. So check your history and look into that.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm saying that you, as the Attorney-General of this province, have in your possession affidavits which should lead you to have a judicial inquiry into the question of influence being used on the Egg Marketing Board of British Columbia favour of an NDP supporter. That's what I request.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Groan.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's easy for the Premier groan, but it's a serious thing. The charges have been made, the affidavits have been sworn, and we have had from the Ministers of the Crown consistent evasion. We had it first from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), who was very careful, as soon as he got his estimates through, to leave, to be out of the way when the Premier's estimates came up, when we started inquiring into the correctness otherwise of the Premier's.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Smear, smear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Agriculture cleared out of the way. He didn't want to be around. I might add he did not defend the Premier. He did not state he believed the Premier's word. Nor did he call the civil servants....

[ Page 1216 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Member to return to the direct responsibility of this Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So the Minister, I think, for these reasons....

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Point of order. This Member's made a statement against the Minister of Agriculture that's not at all correct. He was on government business. To make a statement like that, he should withdraw.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm quite sure, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister was on government business, but it's curious that the government business took place at the time the Premier's estimates were up and this subject was the major subject of discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that any suggestion that a Minister may have been acting improperly or evading his responsibility, when there's no evidence to support this allegation, should be withdrawn.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm working upon, Mr. Chairman, the curious fact of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, no doubt for excellent reasons.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the Hon. Member, then, is withdrawing any imputation that the Member was away deliberately.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, he could hardly have been away not deliberately unless he was locked up somewhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I hope the Hon. Member understands the import of what I'm saying.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I agree, Mr. Chairman, with your ruling to the effect that he was away during that period. I am asking the reasons why, because it was curious that he had his testimony before this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order. The Hon. Member made the clear imputation that the Minister of Agriculture was deliberately away because the Premier's estimates were coming up. Now, that's a minor thing, you know — imputing a motive to a Member — but I think he should withdraw it, because this is minor compared to what else he's doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation. I'm sure that he would.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, if it's the wish of the Attorney-General, I will withdraw that suggestion that he was away during the Premier's estimates deliberately.

I'm sure it was accidental, just as I am sure that the Premier being away during the Minister of Agriculture's estimates was also, of course, on public business and fully accidental.

But we come, of course, to the case which is far more important, of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, did the Hon. Member withdraw?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There have got to be some rules in this House beyond innuendo! I think that that imputation against the Minister of Agriculture should be withdrawn by that Hon. Member — unequivocally!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member to make the withdrawal unconditionally, without any comments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will withdraw that statement, as I have already.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right. I'm satisfied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would make one further point of order before the Hon. Member continues, and that is that there was a statement made by the Hon. Member which would suggest that if a certain course of action is not pursued then the Minister would be guilty of improper conduct. I'm sure that the Hon. Member wouldn't....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the improper conduct was that of the former Attorney-General, Mr. Robert Bonner. I suggest to you, however, that if we remain in the situation where this matter is not cleared up, the present Attorney-General will indeed be derelict in duty. He has not yet reached that point and I am imploring him to set up a judicial inquiry to look into charges — the charges in these affidavits of undue influence which are charges against his brother cabinet Ministers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point that I'm making, Hon. Member, is that it is quite all right for the Hon. Member to request these things, but to suggest that if they are not done the Minister is then guilty of improper conduct is, I think, not consistent with the rules.

[ Page 1217 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

We come, Mr. Chairman, despite our weeks and weeks and weeks on this case, to one of the most curious aspects of all. I think the Attorney-General should be fully aware of this particular bit of information, because it may affect his decision, it may change his mind, on the need for a judicial inquiry outside of politics.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, on the question of an inquiry, are you talking about the Public Inquiries Act?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That is a decision of the government, not the Attorney-General. It is laid out in the Public Inquiries Act. I just wanted to correct you on that point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is true, Mr. Chairman. Actually "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," I believe, is the wording. But the independent role of the Attorney-General is something that he has not yet been willing to comment upon. I think he should, because I believe he is charged under the constitution, as I read it, with a requirement to initiate investigation in matters which come before him in the course of his duties, even if they result in inquiries into the conduct of other Ministers. It is not, therefore, the government itself but the Attorney-General individually, and that is why we are discussing this under the Attorney-General's estimates, who definitely should take this under advisement in his own right and not simply as a member of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I trust that point is well made.

We come now, Mr. Chairman, to the curious bit of new evidence produced this evening. For some reason two Ministers of the government chose this evening to call a press conference to release a piece of information which is material and of critical importance to the entire discussion that has been going on for two weeks. I don't know why they chose this specific moment to release it. I don't know why the government decided, after all the debate in this House on the question, to call a press conference to release it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is this relevant to the Attorney-General's estimates?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is very relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member make this point clearer?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficulty you face. I haven't read any part of it, so you have no way of judging what is in this evidence. I'll do so at once. I'll read paragraph four, just to give you an indication, and then I'll read the whole thing.

This is a letter signed by David D. Stupich, Minister of Agriculture, to Mr. W. Janson, Chairman of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, P.O. Box 310, Abbotsford. It's dated August 14, 1973, and it's a letter of which I did not have a copy until this evening, following the government's press conference. Paragraph four:

"As I reread the Kovachich agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich in the presence of others, the latter was to have additional ordinary permits issued so that he would qualify for a total of 200 cases of production per week."

Agreement as made between the Premier and Mr. Kovachich.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I've asked the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the Attorney-General's estimates. You have not done that as yet.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it's not your estimates insofar as you're not responsible for the Egg Marketing Board, but you are responsible for the enforcement of justice and the launching of inquiries. What I ask of you, Mr. Attorney-General, is an inquiry to clear up this matter. Now, the letter, Mr. Chairman, so you can have the full import of it:

"Dear Mr. Janson:

"In anticipation of your board meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 16, I feel I should clarify my position with respect to arranging for additional egg production in the Interior and Vancouver Island areas of the province.

"We have previously agreed that the government would finance the purchase of quota in the Lower Fraser Valley at the rate of $300 per case and that this quota would be used to issue special permits as recommended by our producer committee.

"It is my understanding that this committee has made recommendations to the board, and I would appreciate it if these recommendations could be approved promptly. It is my understanding also that the effective date of these special permits will be June 1, 1973.

"Holders of the special permits will pay interest to the government at the rate of 6 per cent of $300 per case annually for a period of 5

[ Page 1218 ]

years.

"These special permits may be converted to quotas at any time upon payment of $300 per case up to the end of the fifth year of payment. Subsequent to that date the price per case of quota shall be reduced at the rate of $30 per year until...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I fail to see any relevance to the estimates before us. We are in committee and you must keep your remarks relevant to the estimates under consideration.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the following paragraph is the one that I read earlier, Mr. Chairman. The point of this new information released by the government at this time is this: there was an agreement, according to the letter signed by the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. BARRETT: An agreement that was set up by the lawyers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "As I reread the Kovachich agreement...the latter was to have an additional...." I will read it out again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would make the point, Hon. Member, that I think you have made your point with the Attorney-General. I fail to see that anything new has been said.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's this: we are worried about the question of influence peddling — I am. The charge has been made in this House, and I'm not repeating it. It has been made and I'm saying there is serious concern that certain people have had special deals.

This talks of an agreement between the Premier and a Mr. Kovachich — a written agreement which has not been brought forward, despite our constant questioning. Why not? Where is it? Why is it that through days of testimony or days of cross-examination or questioning in the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier, no information was given about this letter and none about that agreement?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no written agreement between Mr. Kovachich and I. I state that categorically.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member has not said anything that is new in relation to the estimates of the Hon. Attorney-General. I think the point has been well made. Unless he has something new to say I would ask him to discontinue his speech.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has made a categorical statement. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture said: "As I reread the Kovachich agreement" as made between him and the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member either to bring something up new in relation to the estimates before us or to take his seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there has never before been a statement of such an agreement of this nature.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I state categorically that there is no written agreement between myself and Mr. Kovachich. That Member is being mischievous, just as he was last week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to continue any further with this matter. If he wishes to consider the estimates of the Attorney-General in some other form or in some other aspects then he may do so, but otherwise I would ask him to be seated.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, it's 11 p.m. Standing order 3.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.