[ Page 1253 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

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

Amendment to vote 11.

Mr. Wallace — 1253

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1254

Mr. Bennett — 1254

Mr. Curtis — 1254

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1255

Division on amendment — 1255

On vote 11.

Mr. Gardom — 1255

Mrs. Jordan — 1256

Mr. Smith — 1256

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1257

Mr. McGeer — 1257

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1257

Mr. McClelland — 1258

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1260

Mr. McGeer — 1261

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1261

Mr. Wallace — 1262

Mrs. Jordan — 1264

Mr. Lewis — 1265

On vote 12.

Mr. Smith — 1266

Mr. Wallace — 1266

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1266

On vote 14.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1266

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1266

On vote 15.

Mr. Wallace — 1267

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1267

On vote 16.

Mr. Smith — 1267

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1267

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1267

Mr. Wallace — 1267

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1268

Ms. Brown — 1268

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1268

On vote 17.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1268

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1268

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1268

Mr. Wallace — 1269

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1269

On vote 18.

Mr. Smith — 1269

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1270

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1270

On vote 19.

Mr. Smith — 1270

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1270

On vote 20.

Mr. Smith — 1270

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1270

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1270

Mr. Curtis — 1271

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1271

On vote 22.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1271

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1271

On vote 23.

Mr. Smith — 1271

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1272

Mr. Wallace — 1272

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1272

On vote 24.

Mr. Smith — 1272

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1272

Mr. Smith — 1272

On vote 26.

Mr. Bennett — 1272

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1273

On vote 27.

Mr. Smith — 1273

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1273

On vote 28.

Mr. Smith — 1273

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1273

On vote 29.

Mr. Smith — 1273

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1273

On vote 30.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1273

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1274

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1274

Mr. Wallace — 1274

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1274

Mr. Curtis — 1274

On vote 31.

Mr. Smith — 1274

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1274

On vote 32.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1275

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1275

On vote 34.

Mr. Smith — 1275

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1275

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1275

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1276

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1277

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1277

Mr. Wallace — 1278

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1278

On vote 35.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1278

On vote 36.

Mr. Chabot — 1278

Mr. Chabot — 1278

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1279

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1279

Mr. Chabot — 1279

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1280

Mr. Chabot — 1280

Division on motion that the Committee rise — 1280

On vote 36.

Mr. Smith — 1280

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1280

Mr. Smith — 1282

Mrs. Jordan — 1282

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1283

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1283

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Speaking first to the amendment to reduce the Attorney-General's salary by $1, I recognize the Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll try not to repeat what was said just before the lunch break, but I was trying to tell the House my conclusions and my stand on this very important amendment.

I was making the point that some of the reasons which have been given for this amendment to me are not as strong as other reasons. I feel that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has certainly been very slow to get off the mark in dealing with some of the very serious problems in our jails and in providing reasonable facilities which, I know, had been asked for under the previous administration.

Since the last debate I've made further inquiries and I feel convinced that this is a reasonable criticism, and that the Attorney-General's department has been well aware of the need for these facilities to be improved. The inhuman conditions under which prisoners are housed in Wilkinson Road are just totally unacceptable.

I also feel very unhappy at the failure of the Attorney-General to talk with conviction about the guidance that he's had from Dr. Matheson on one very important method of tackling the drug problem. I asked him specifically twice in the debate yesterday, and I really didn't get a satisfactory answer.

As to the third part of the reason for this amendment, namely the whole question of what I consider nothing more than a complete shambles in the way in which the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Attorney-General got themselves into a real mess administratively. I thought as I left the chamber and went to lunch today that to err is human, to forgive divine, but it seems to me there is more error than forgiveness in politics, and the people of British Columbia, when they listen to the opinions of the legislators in this building, don't quite take that philosophical view of the situation.

There must be a strong sense of concern and wonder as to what exactly did go on, and why it would at least appear from the evidence presented by both sides of the House that there was considerable bending of the rules and that certain agreements were worked out, apparently oblivious to the fact that the Ministers concerned were setting a very serious precedent. Today we heard of some of the consequences of that precedent where another person has sought to be treated in like manner under the government of this province.

I should say at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I have no hesitation whatever in supporting completely the integrity of the Attorney-General. I've already commented on the fact that I in no way support or even condone the comments that were made mentioning someone else's name who finally went to jail for a criminal act while a cabinet Minister. I've no wish to be associated with that kind of innuendo at all.

I have no personal doubt whatever about the integrity of the Attorney-General, for whom I have a lot of respect.

However....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I was doing so well up to that point.

It is a serious matter, and I do consider that the Attorney-General is at fault for having been knowledgeable about the way in which steps were taken by members of the cabinet which, if they are not illegal, come under question as to their legality.

We've heard in debate that part of the problem and part of the reason the Premier got involved was that there seemed to be some doubt as to the legal standing of the marketing board in its ability or capacity to take people to court. And the whole structure of the marketing board system seemed to be somewhat in danger if the matter did go to court, and it was found that the board was trying to use powers that it did not, in effect, have.

In other words it is obvious to me, and I think to most lay people, who don't understand the technicalities of the law, that there was one considerable mess and nobody really quite knew how to handle it and just how far they should go in exerting their good offices into the situation.

Probably the difficulty is that when one tries to listen to both sides of the argument without a preconceived idea, it is possible that you can only come to one conclusion. But the fact is that the Attorney-General is a party to a degree of cabinet interference and subsequent action which certainly undermines the confidence of people and the confidence of the opposition in the Minister himself and in his capacity to understand exactly what his duties, as Attorney-General, are in the province.

On that basis, for the other reasons that I've outlined, and for his mishandling and failure to act in

[ Page 1254 ]

a more responsible way, and finally for his refusal to consider some further inquiry, this party has to conclude that we must support the amendment.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I thought it was about time one of the backbenchers got into this debate. We have talked this over, of course — some of us in the backbench — and I'd like to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that we even talk about some of these things in front of our leader. We find that we don't have to exclude him when we want to talk about something important, or almost anything important. We include him in the conversations.

We have had what I consider, as a new Member to this House, a very, very sad three weeks. It looks to me as though we have a small group in the House, such as the Liberals, who, if they can't run it, decide to wreck it. That's the way they appear to me — the wreckers of the House. If the democratic procedure doesn't happen to run exactly the way this fading little group likes it, they decide the only thing to do is do their best to wreck it.

The leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is causing me quite a problem. I've been living in horror for three weeks that some of his remarks will be attributed to myself, seeing as we bear the same name. So I'll probably have to contact the Attorney-General at some later date to find out what legal procedure there is to go about changing your name if the same type of so-called debate, as it is called, continues in this House as has been going on in the past three weeks.

It looks to me, the way the debate has been going for the last three weeks — the tactics that have been used, the digging up of mud, the scratching up of dirt — very easy to see why so often when the Liberal Party in the various constituencies in this province have nominating conventions, they go by acclamation.

It is very hard, even as a government backbencher, to see what was once a proud party in this province and this country, but it's dropped as far down the scale as it had and has to take part in this kind of tactics that there's nothing for democracy, nothing for politicians and certainly is bringing people's opinion of politics to a lower scale than it was.

I know I speak for many of the backbench when I speak of this disappointment that we find in coming into the House, and it doesn't need a 10-year apprenticeship in the Legislative Assembly to realize the kind of tactics that are being used and why they're being used.

The one thing I can't understand totally is why they're being used, because no one is making any Brownie points on this. There's no way that the Liberal Party is gaining. They may be making a few points in Vancouver–Point Grey or West Vancouver–Howe Sound, but if they get out to the country and talk to the real people in this province, they'll certainly find that they're flogging a dead horse.

MRS. P. J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A dead chicken.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: It's called debate? I've seen some better debates in some of the local union meetings with a membership of only about 15. We had better arguments and better points put forward at that time, than this tedious and repetitious type of thing that has been going on in this House.

I certainly fully support the Attorney-General in his office. If I was convinced on principle that he was not doing the best job that possibly be done in this office, I would certainly be one of the ones to stand and support this motion, but I certainly don't intend to. It has no basis, in fact it's merely a continuation of the continual dig-up-the mud, throw it around, smear and scratch the dirt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): During the debate on the agricultural estimates and the Premier's estimates we've heard much on this debate and further in the estimates of the Attorney-General. Early on we suggested that it was beyond the ability of this House to settle this matter as it would just revolve around personalities and charges, and this has been the case, and yet it's a very serious matter that's been brought up and that we're discussing.

We have supported the position earlier for a public inquiry and we felt that while the Premier as one of the principals in the discussion may not have been able to call that inquiry, the Attorney-General with his position may have caused an investigation or inquiry into this fact.

I'd like to thank the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, for finally calling an investigation into Columbia Cellulose after the request from the opposition on circumstances surrounding this take-over last year. But in regard to a public inquiry on the events that have dominated this Legislature, the type of inquiry that would have removed it from the political debate into the area of investigation that should have been conducted, the Attorney-General has not taken the type of position that we thought he should have. For this reason we support the amendment.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in supporting the motion before us now, but perhaps for some reasons other than those which have been indicated by the mover. As I understand it, as a relatively new Member of the House, this kind of action represents an assessment of how a particular Minister is conducting

[ Page 1255 ]

his responsibilities in the portfolio assigned to him and I have to go on record as saying that I think he has failed...

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): It's a vote of confidence so don't give us that stuff.

MR. CURTIS: ...in the conducting of some of those responsibilities. I'm very disappointed in the lack of co-operation shown by the Attorney-General through the several days of this rather lengthy debate, his inability or refusal to give us all the information which is available to him and to senior members of his department.

He could have been much more helpful to the Members of this House and therefore to the people of British Columbia, in discussing matters which are clearly of concern to all of us. He's had a casual and at times, I think I have to say, disinterested attitude towards the estimates. He's been present for much of them, present for much of the discussion of his vote, but he has been rather casual and indifferent to some of the questions put by Members of the opposition and points made by them.

But quite apart from the actions of this week, and the frustration which Members of the opposition feel with respect to the Minster's lack of co-operation, I feel that the Attorney-General is not conducting the affairs of his department in the way that we expected on the basis of his performance in opposition.

A number of matters known to us individually and severally have been left on the table for far too long — a number of problems unresolved, a number of questions demanding answers and waiting for answers from the chief law enforcement officer of the province, and that's not good enough. That's really not what we expected from an individual who was lucid and insistent and who persevered when he sat on the other side of the House.

Something happens to Members of the opposition when they move across the floor of the House, and I think that whatever it may be, it is personified in the actions of the Attorney-General, not only this week but during his time holding this very important portfolio. We want a less-casual approach to some of the problems which have been sitting on his desk for a long time, and we want more direct answers and more informative answers in order that we can have the kind of meaningful debate and the kind of helpful and positive exchange which, I think, government should be all about.

I'm disappointed in the Attorney-General, disappointed in what he has done this week and what he has not done this week — and what I think is more important — what he has not done this week. But I do by no means restrict my criticism to this week alone, and therefore have no problem whatever in supporting the amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I want to say I appreciated what was said by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). You know, in the case of prison reform, which is very much at my heart, the more you people on the opposition can push me — whether it's by way of confidence votes or any way — that's fine, I appreciate that. That's a specific thing with concrete objectives and I want to be pushed.

In the case of the drugs, I've explained that the alternative facilities are in another department, but nevertheless it's a matter that is of real concern, and I would think anguished concern, to all the Members of this House, and certainly to the public and the parents.

On the third point raised by the Hon. Member, I respectfully disagree, but that's the way the world goes. In terms of what the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) has just said, there was nothing concrete in it whatsoever. It was just a message and not quite as much appreciated because there was no argument, just a little bit of "I don't like your demeanour." Everybody's got a different demeanour. We're all human and we shouldn't preach at one another too much. Thank you.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 30

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): In your report to the Speaker would you report that a vote took place and ask leave that this be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): There is a topic that has not been discussed during this very interesting debate in the Attorney-General's estimates, Mr. Chairman. The questions of guns, revolvers, pistols, shotguns. Firearms. Is the

[ Page 1256 ]

ownership of guns in B.C. today a right? I say yes, it is. But should it be? I say no, it should not be. It should be a privilege. Guns should certainly not be in the hands of everyone. We've got to have more stringent controls on firearms — not just on hand guns but on all firearms.

We've got to bolster the enforcement of the law I am going to suggest. We have to stiffen up penalties for breaches. I would say it should certainly be recommended to the judiciary that there be far higher periods of sentence for any use of firearms in holdups.

I don't think we should continue just to sit back and wait for tragedy. Surely the time has come, Mr. Chairman. It should be a mark today of our maturity and proof of our moral character that B.C. must decide that all guns other than those available via the provisions of the law be forbidden and prevented. To allow everybody to have a gun in the province today is just purely and simply very dangerous.

I would very much wish in this short talk to put our gun laws under fire. I would advocate a central registry of all firearms. Any purchaser in a sale of any guns would have to file an applicable transfer in the registry. Any gun that was not so filed in the registry and transferred via a registry would be an illegal method of dealing with a firearm.

All dealers of firearms must be licensed. There must be very hefty fines for violators.

I suggest that it not be possible for any gun, rifles, sidearm, revolver or shotgun to be sold to anyone under the age of 18 years. People aged 18 to 21 be permitted only to purchase shotguns and rifles, and certainly not small arms.

I believe the dealers should have to take statutory declarations as to the ages of the purchasers. It should be totally illegal to sell guns of any description to mental defectives or people who have had past convictions.

In order to prevent fear and lessen crime and save lives, this proposal I have made today is one way.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to take a moment to continue on the Hon. Member's suggestions because I think they are very good. I would add one more suggestion: I think it should be mandatory in British Columbia for anyone owning a newly-registered firearm to have to take a training course in the use of firearms.

I think there is an interesting undercurrent which the Hon. Member (Mr. Gardom) didn't mention. There is a rising interest in firearms in the Province of British Columbia. If my information is correct, and I believe it is, I think you will find that sales of firearms, in terms of shotguns, 22s and pistols, have risen sharply in the last two years in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: That's true, Mr. Member. I think beyond what you have said and what I suggest in terms of a mandatory training programme, we should be looking at the underlying reason for this increase in firearms in British Columbia. I would strongly suggest that this interest is not merely a casual passing fancy. There is a deeper psychological reason. The increase in the interest and the increase in the sale of firearms seems to have a strong link with the talk of liberalization of laws. I'm not thinking in terms that we should be stringent in our laws for the sake of being stringent; I think there is a general feeling of unrest and personal fear arising across British Columbia.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) shakes his head and says no. I wasn't implying that the people were going out to shoot the government, although some might be tempted. I think if the Minister of Labour will talk to doctors and some of the psychologists and will just go out and talk to people, you will find there are many people joining shotgun clubs, many through the Fish and Wildlife Branch, many through fish and game clubs. They will say, "I'm just interested in target practice." But if you get them alone and start talking, you'll hear them very strongly and without reservations say that they are concerned about self-protection in their homes and the rising incidence of physical attacks on women, the rising incidence of robberies, and the rising incidence of physical abuse. I am certainly not going into all the reasons but I am not being facetious, Mr. Attorney-General. I don't consider myself a psychiatrist.

I do suggest to you that this is something we should be looking into along with the concrete suggestions the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) made and also my suggestion for the training programme being mandatory. We should really know why there is this increase in sales and if, in fact, there is a strong underlying psychological reason which could lead to some extremely unhappy circumstances and which we might be able to stave off by education and perhaps a second look at some of our legislation.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I would like to spend a few minutes on this topic, since it's been raised in the House this afternoon, and to perhaps bring to the attention o f the Attorney-General a line of argument that has not been advanced by either of the two previous speakers. I agree that firearms generally in the Province of British Columbia can be bought almost anywhere — all types of firearms, with the exception of fully automatic machine guns, Sten guns and this sort of thing. You can get any calibre of rifle, revolver or

[ Page 1257 ]

shotgun at almost any store in the province of British Columbia without a permit or anything else.

But the fact that you can buy them, particularly sidearms, does not mean that you can get a permit from the RCMP to carry that weapon. As a matter of fact it is very, very difficult, and becoming increasingly difficult, to get a permit to carry a sidearm.

In most circumstances, I'd suggest that that is a good thing. But there are three classifications of people today who object to the fact that they have had their requests for permit renewals refused or they have absolutely been refused outright a permit to carry a sidearm. Those three classifications of people are trappers, prospectors and big game guides. They, because of the type of work they're involved in, quite often desire to carry a sidearm rather than a rifle. It's not a matter of massacring big game or anything else. It's a matter of carrying a sidearm as a matter of personal protection when they're in the wilds.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Grizzly is one of the problems, yes, that's right, but any bear in a given situation will charge — other types of animals, too. Even a moose, a cow moose with a young calf, is a dangerous animal if you come on it unexpectedly in the wild and if you have no means of protecting yourself. I don't think you'll ever talk to a big game guide, a trapper or a prospector who has not at one time in his life, if he has been continually in the wilds, had to run up a tree and scramble up there because of a moose — either in rut or a cow moose with a calf — that you happen to stumble on in the wild unexpectedly.

A cougar is not really that dangerous in the bush. But there are other animals that are far more of a problem. So all I would suggest to the Attorney-General is this: I realize that there must be a directive out to the RCMP to be very restrictive in the number of permits that they'll issue to people for carrying sidearms; but for goodness' sake, take another look, if you would, with the RCMP at those three particular classifications of people. Some of them have had to run for their lives and some of them have been fortunate enough to escape, and others have not.

Most of the people in that profession that I talk to do not wish to carry a rifle, because it's cumbersome when you're working on a prospecting claim or when you're trapping in the woods and you're travelling on snowshoes a lot of the time. They do like to carry a sidearm. Unfortunately, in immediate past years, it's been increasingly difficult for them to get a permit to carry a revolver when they're out in the wilds. I hope the Attorney-General in his wisdom would see fit to allow these people to continue the practice of carrying sidearms when they are in the wilds.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a subject that I asked be put upon the agenda of the last dominion-provincial meeting of Attorneys-General and the Minister of Justice. I'm very concerned about it because I think there's a danger that the American experience, which is terrible, can seep across the line.

I think the national controls have to be looked at very seriously, and at the same time the legitimate sports activities of hunters cannot be enmeshed in red tape. I think that could be done. I think we could satisfy that need and at the same time protect society so that we shall not become a greater Detroit where, believe it or not, in the last year they had 750 gun murders.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hand guns, though?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All kinds, you know — 750. In Northern Ireland in one year in the civil war — and they fight in Northern Ireland on almost any pretext — they had 250 dead. In one big city there were 750 in one year. I think it's something that we can't be blind to. I have made representations at Ottawa and I intend to make more.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to raise another subject with the Attorney-General, and this has to do with telephones and the possibility of a single emergency number existing in this province. The Attorney-General has always expressed a wish that the government take over the telephone company. Indeed, the government is a significant enough shareholder now that it can begin to use board influence, if not direct legislative power.

I think it's time we had in British Columbia one number that is a simple number, perhaps a three-digit number, manned 24 hours-a-day that anybody could call at any time when there was an emergency. Then the people on the other end of the line would immediately transfer it to the appropriate agency — fire, police, medical emergency, whatever it is — and action would take place.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he's able to give any thought to that idea and whether we might look forward to something like this in the future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's a suggestion really I'm hearing for the first time in any detail, and I appreciate the suggestion. We'll consider it if it's in any way practical. I take it to be apart from civil defence, which is under the Provincial Secretary, and that it's really related to things in my department. I think that's the intention. I think it's a suggestion well worth considering. It may be possible to implement that without taking over the phone company.

[ Page 1258 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I wanted to bring up just a couple of items about the Liquor Control Board before the opportunity passed and also to make a couple of comments about alcohol in general. I've spoken quite extensively about the drug problem and I was happy to hear the Attorney-General at least offer a little more encouragement to us in relation to this concern with the drug-dependency problems today.

I didn't want it to get abroad that narcotic drugs are the only concern because certainly there isn't any doubt in anyone's mind — or at least in my mind — that alcohol abuse is the greatest drug problem in North America. I think the Attorney-General has a duty to the people of British Columbia as well to make sure that some of the profits from the Liquor Control Board go toward establishing some kind of treatment programmes to help eradicate the problems contained in alcohol abuse.

It's funny, you know, that we hear parents of young children say too often in relation to drug use something like, "Thank God, he or she hasn't taken any drugs or isn't smoking marijuana — only having the odd beer or rye or Coke or something." That's an attitude that is very prevalent in our society. I recall recently a statement being made that 20 per cent of high school students had tried marijuana, and there was instant panic. Yet when we tell them that 80 per cent drink alcohol, nobody even listens. There's something wrong with our sense of values there. There's a bit of unbalance.

I'm not advocating that we go back and arm everybody with axes and go back to the days of Carrie Nation, but to a large degree, Mr. Chairman, the Dries in our society have been discredited. We've come full circle from those days of Women's Christian Temperance Union prominence and from those days of prohibition. Now we don't listen to the Dries at all. If someone advocates any kind of temperance, with relation to alcohol, then he is immediately ridiculed and discredited as attempting to put down some kind of an established social problem. Yet the facts show, Mr. Chairman, that Canadians today drink 30 per cent more alcohol than they did 25 years ago.

I suggest, and it's on pretty good authority, that the reason we drink 30 per cent more alcohol than we did 25 years ago is because alcohol is more available. It's as simple as that. And it concerns me that the Premier, Mr. Chairman, makes statements such as his statement about the continental style of drinking in this country. He came back from that trip to France or wherever it was that he was, and suggested that that's the way we should go in British Columbia — because he liked what he saw over in France and Germany. He liked that continental style of drinking.

Yet I wonder what the consequences are of that kind of continental style of drinking. It might be of interest to the House, Mr. Chairman, to know that deaths in France from cirrhosis of the liver are the highest in the world — six times higher than in Canada.

In France, 42 per cent of all health expenditures are spent in treatment of alcohol-related diseases. That's the consequence of that kind of continental style of drinking.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I don't have the figures for Italy at hand, but I happen to have the figures for France, Mr. Chairman. Fifty per cent of all of the hospital beds in France are occupied by patients suffering from alcohol-related diseases. Those are meaningful and important statistics that all of us should be concerned with, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that's exactly what we want in this country. When we're talking about alcoholism and peripherally, through you, Mr. Chairman, as it relates to health, we don't even recognize alcoholism as a health problem in this country, in British Columbia anyway. The Canadian Medical Association doesn't even recognize it as a health problem. Yet the American Medical Association recognized it years and years and years ago — that hide-bound old conservative association. In 1935 they recognized it as a treatable illness. We don't in this country.

Bringing the problem closer to home, Mr. Chairman, in Ontario in a recent study there, I think done in 1969, it was shown that 38 per cent of the deaths from cirrhosis of the liver were directly related to alcoholism, 22 per cent of peptic ulcer deaths, 18 per cent of suicides, 15 per cent of pneumonia deaths, 16 per cent of cancer of the upper digestive and respiratory tract, over 5 per cent of heart and artery deaths — all directly related to alcoholism. In addition to that, 45 per cent of all the poisoning deaths in that year in Ontario, 43 per cent of the accidental fire deaths, 25 per cent of falls and other related physical problems — all related directly to alcoholism. It's been proved in that same survey that was done in 1969 in Ontario that the alcoholic has twice the chance of premature death than anyone else does.

In Canada, over 50 per cent of all the traffic deaths are directly related to alcohol in one way or another. About a year ago the Attorney-General said that we could expect immediately easements in the liquor laws. I'm all in favour of liberalization of the laws — there's no question about that — but I just want us all to know that greater liberalization means greater use.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why do you say you're in favour of it?

[ Page 1259 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm in favour of changes to the liquor law because I believe that the liquor laws as they relate today are completely out of date, but I'm telling you that liberalization of the liquor laws and moving into a continental style of drinking means greater use of alcohol. You have to accept that result if you accept the concept of liberalization. Greater use means a greater prevalence of death and disease as a consequence. If you continue to say that there will be liberalization of the liquor laws, then you also have to accept that consequence, because with greater liberalization and greater use there isn't any country in the whole world where that hasn't proved to be correct. When you make the product more available, it will be used to a larger degree.

With respect to a couple of items specifically, one of them is the neighbourhood pub. I don't know where we're going in that respect, but once again, a year ago at least the Attorney-General said that there would be changes made and that we would be moving into a kind of a neighbourhood pub concept. I hope that the Attorney-General will look at the situation as it exists in England first of all, in connection with neighbourhood pubs, because I suggest that while they call England the most civilized drinking country in the world, that isn't quite correct. People are moving away from cities in England because of neighbourhood pubs and for other reasons. There's a terrible problem. I was reading in an editorial about a place called Wigan, which is a British industrial town in the north where there is literally an average of two pubs to every city block. The editorial says:

"Wigan at closing time on Saturday night sounds like a revolution is in progress. Nobody attempts to sleep until the last noisy reveler has made his unsteady way home. The performance is repeated every Sunday evening."

These people who are greeting the provincial government's move to introduce neighbourhood pubs with applause should take time to think on these things. I also suggest that if you look into the kind of appalling situation that's developed in the United States in relation to taverns, it's just as bad. Most of them, in my opinion, are atrocious. They're nothing more than watering holes and they offer their participants very little in the way of any kind of entertainment.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. I hope that we don't go that same route here, Mr. Chairman. It's a terrible situation.

It's too bad that the Attorney-General continues to put down any suggestions for changes, either in alcohol-related problems or drug-related problems. I don't know whose department he thinks that this is in, but I suggest that it's in his. He's made some suggestions with which I don't agree.

A year ago, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Attorney-General whether or not he would do a survey into the relation between lowered drinking ages and alcohol-related automobile accidents, and he promised me at that time that he would. That was a year ago, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll do it again and you may be able to get started on it one of these days, but I asked you a year ago whether or not you would consider doing — or getting — some kind of survey which would show the relation between automobile accidents and lower drinking ages. Now, a year ago you promised that you would get that survey for me and I just wonder where it is and how much longer it might take to get.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, that's not in your department either. I'm really sorry about that. I'm striking out on every occasion here. Nothing is in your department.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, but Mr. Attorney-General, I think that you should address yourself to that problem.

I don't know whether it was a year ago or not, but it's quite a while ago that we talked about hiring females in liquor stores, and that's happening pretty slowly too. I understand that there is one and I don't think you even knew about that one, through you, Mr. Chairman. That was an accident that she got hired.

But you made some promises, Mr. Attorney-General. There were some changes in the Factories Act to do away with some of the restrictions. The chairman of the Human Rights Commission a week or so ago said that the lack of facilities was no reason for not hiring women in liquor stores. So when are we going to start? I know you have several applications. I've even forwarded a couple to you myself. So when are you going to start hiring women in liquor stores? It's as simple as that. I would think that the proponents of women's rights on your side of the building should be vitally interested in that, too. I'd say that they should be telling you that you've been much too slow in getting women hired in liquor stores.

I welcome your announcement in answer to the question from the Second Member for

[ Page 1260 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that you are intending to have a complete management survey of the operation of retail stores. I think that's much overdue and should be done as quickly as possible.

I have Hansard here but I've lost it somewhere, so I may misquote you slightly, but I did ask about a year ago again, Mr. Chairman, when you were going to act to bring live music into our hotel beer parlours. You said: "That's a priority." I asked you in March, 1973 — it's just one year ago this month. I said: "Will you make this a priority?" In press statements at about the same time, you also said that your priority was more live entertainment in liquor outlets. Now, this would seem to me to be only a logical method of at least bringing some kind of civilization to the watering holes which are the beer parlours of British Columbia right now.

Live music, if nothing else, would help to replace the constant enforced guzzling that we have in today's beer parlours. Mr. Chairman, if that's the priority, and you move that slowly on priorities, I would hate to see what happens on the other items which you don't consider to be priorities, because we're going to wait a long, long time for action on them.

You also said, through you, Mr. Chairman, that you were going to make changes to permit expanding the bright lights of the B.C. hinterland, including lonely logging and mining camps. I wonder what you did on that. I wonder what happened there. Perhaps the Attorney-General might like to comment on that one.

Briefly, there are some things that I think we should consider in relation to the proper operation of our retail liquor outlets. First of all, I don't know who plans them, but I expect it's a committee somewhere because they are very badly planned. I would suggest that somebody well qualified in retail management should be asked to plan these stores — a merchandiser, because that's the business you're in. Probably there should be pre-pricing of products before they come into the store because they sit on the floor for two and three weeks sometimes before they ever get to the shelves.

What are you going to do about refrigerated beer depots in the major cities? That's long overdue I think. Keg beer — as is available in some other provinces. Beer and wine stores separate from the regular liquor stores where these products, particularly wines, can be sold and properly displayed is well-controlled stores. I think that's overdue.

Specialty stores might be a good idea, as they have in Ontario and, I guess, maybe some other areas. What is the government's official stand now? A lot of people are waiting to find out about neighbourhood pubs, and in what direction are you going.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we are having a much quieter debate this afternoon and it's certainly appreciated, I'm sure.

However, there were some slight transgressions into the Department of Health, and the areas on which the department impinges. I'd like to say first off that it wasn't long after we had been government that I checked into the hospital situation in this province as to the treatment of alcohol and its effects.

There's no question about it that our hospitals are not glorified detox centres. There's no question about it that there is a need for that particular service. However, people who are being treated in this province for the effects of alcohol are treated in our hospitals and are acknowledged to have those types of effects.

However, we have to be very careful in suggesting specifically...for example, if a person's in for cirrhosis of the liver or in for perforated peptic ulcer or whatever, then naturally that's the diagnosis. So on that basis we've given strict orders to all hospitals to acknowledge the need for the treatment of the alcohol problem. As a matter of fact we are working very closely right now with this department and the Stein commission on the whole question of how do we get people from one stage to another. There is a tremendous....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would....

HON. MR. COCKE: Just a minute. We're talking about alcohol from that side of the floor, Mr. Chairman, using very liberal constraints, and I think I should be able to answer some of these questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering the estimates of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right, that's what I thought. But, Mr. Chairman, in any event, there is a tremendous concern.

The Member was also talking about the liberal attitude toward alcohol in France. He said that there is a tremendous alcoholism problem in France with identically the same, or virtually identically the same, attitude toward alcohol. Italy is the exact reverse. There are so many things that we must understand and learn about alcohol. I think the universality of availability is here. Our problem isn't to try to build the constraints that we once had in our society.

I remember particularly in my air force years, I was being trained in Montreal, and not too long much later I went down to the ANS (Air Navigation School) at Summerside, P.E.I. At that time in Summerside there was no liquor available legally -prohibition. I can remember walking down the streets of Charlottetown on a Saturday night and comparing that to walking down the streets of Montreal which

[ Page 1261 ]

was relatively wide open. The incidence of drunkenness in Charlottetown was so much more that it wasn't even funny.

So those kinds of constraints that were laid on people in prohibition times didn't help a bit. As a matter of fact it made things worse.

Now the incidence of drunkenness with the beer parlours, as opposed to the pubs, I suggest to you is probably a great deal more because the pub gives the friendly kind of climate where the beer parlour is a huge factory where the whole intention is to provide as much beer in the time that a person has to drink it — a stupor parlour, as some people call them.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Attorney-General in his careful, methodical way is moving in the right direction in this province. A direction, Mr. Chairman, which is a very careful analysis of the problem before we get involved in asinine solutions which nobody can defend.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a very brief suggestion to the Attorney-General as to how a little bit of progress might be made. Two Members have been discussing the problem of alcoholism, and I think it's generally recognized that prohibition is unlikely to succeed in British Columbia. Therefore, our best opportunity is to try and modify and ameliorate drinking habits.

One of the recognized ways is to discourage the use of hard liquor in favour of alternatives of lesser proof. One of them is beer, another is wine. I'd like to deal with just one of these alternatives — wine.

I believe it unfortunate that you cannot buy good wine at a reasonable price in British Columbia. We might as well say publicly what everybody else says privately, namely, that B.C. wine is lousy wine. It's lousy wine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. McGEER: Shame, says the Member, but they're all going to go and buy good imported wine. I don't think we should give any financial advantage to a lousy winemaker, whether it's from British Columbia or anywhere else. I believe that the Attorney-General should be prepared to allow imported wines to come into British Columbia and be sold at a comparable price to a local wines. That's going to be a solution for two reasons: One, if you allow good wines to come into British Columbia at a reasonable price, people will stop drinking as much hard liquor and they'll begin to drink a material of lesser proof.

Secondly, British Columbia wines might improve. I believe as long as they are given protection by the Attorney-General — I'm talking about financial protection — they will continue to be lousy wines.

Excellent wines are made in California, in New York State, in many countries of Europe, which, if allowed into British Columbia at the going market price, would compete with local wines in price. You'd be able to buy a bottle of decent wine to have with your dinner at a price within the means of the average person. He wouldn't need to go out guzzling beer at a beer parlour on Saturday night. He wouldn't need to go and buy himself a bottle of hard stuff.

Hard liquor that's sold in British Columbia is as good as hard liquor that's sold elsewhere. Beer that's sold in British Columbia is as good as beer that's sold elsewhere. But wine is not. What we have to do is try to encourage people to go to milder beverages.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General why it is we can't have good imported wines in British Columbia selling at the same price as the wines of the Capozzi enterprises and the other local winemakers, which in my view constitute lousy wines, and I'm not afraid to say so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in answer to a few questions, and this sums up a number of questions. As I said earlier in the week, the liquor regulations which will be proclaimed under the new Act, as it was amended in the spring of 1973, have been drafted. They have been before the three-man B.C. liquor board and that board is taking its time considering them. I expect they'll be returned for consideration by the government very shortly. They will deal with such things as when a general licence or a pub licence can be granted.

I want to assure the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) that we have no intention of piling them up a number to a block or anything like that. They should be spaced out and very clearly justified in terms of community need. We envisage the smaller establishments as leading to moderation in drinking habits, as opposed to the larger drinking establishments.

We think the question of live entertainment in beer parlours, although there has been some change in fact in the last year, again is something that will be provided for in these regulations. Once again, we think it will lead to more moderate drinking habits because there will be something more to do than just drink. We hope it will also give employment to people in our community who are inclined to talent in the field of folk music or combo, and things of that kind. I'm not thinking of Alexis at this time.

The logging camps will come in the same. We do intend to disburse it where there is a need for entertainment and a social centre in remote areas of the province. I think we have to disperse our culture from out of the lower mainland to the hinterland.

MR. SMITH: Do you put loggers on the same wave length?

[ Page 1262 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Women in beer parlours; women in the liquor stores. There's quite an answer and I couldn't turn it up right away. The answer in the Votes and Proceedings I filed shows a lot in administration, quite a few in warehousing -and that's the little lady up-Island. She was in the answer; she's been there some little time. In the stores we do have the problem, although we're moving on it as quickly as we can, that we have a great many people on recall; they are casual people who established a bit of a job-right in a liquor store. You can't ride roughshod over them. Quite apart from the union agreement, you've got a moral question there too. You can't expect big progress there.

Separate facilities. The Factories Act, 1966 has been changed in terms of the weight thing but not in terms of the separate lavatory facilities. We're correcting that problem so we'll be able to get a point of no discrimination.

As for the local wines, I can't agree that they're all that bad, I say to the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I think there's some good Rieslings and some good dry reds that have been produced.

In the Province of B.C. we shouldn't think of it only as an economic thing. There are farmers growing grapes; there are people working in wineries. That's important. But over and above that, I think it's important that we gradually upgrade the quality of our local wines. I think we should have some price advantage for that reason. This listing policy has been looked at. We do have dumping in British Columbia from some countries that might be behind the Iron Curtain or Spain or Portugal or somewhere like that. They can sell to us, to be dumped on the consumer in B.C., a good table wine at less than it is selling for in the country of origin. That's dumping, and I think our local produces at least are entitled to protection against that kind of thing.

In my opinion they should have a markup because I think in time we can produce great wines in British Columbia. We have to give the industry a chance and we have to monitor the thing. We are reviewing our listing policy of those as I mentioned earlier in the House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to greatly lengthen the debate on alcohol, but the impression has been created, I think, by some Members that society and others are not really fully aware of the dimension of the problem. Just because we've talked a great deal about drugs, I don't think there should be any doubt in anyone's mind that far and away alcohol is a bigger problem than drugs in that it affects a much larger number of people.

I'm not going to repeat the long speech we had from the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) last night. Was it last night? It seems like a long time ago. He quoted at great lengths from the very excellent document put out by the Women's Christian Temperance Union. It has all the statistics and I have no intention whatever in going through all the various ways in which it affects society.

It is a major problem unquestionably.

On the other hand, I think we should recognize a few facts of life in our society also. I happened to fall asleep in my chair last night — not here but when I got home. When I woke up, I woke up to the sound of gunfire. This was the TV that had been left on and it was the film called "The St. Valentine's Day Massacre." I had been meaning to make a few comments in the House on this question of alcohol. I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, that that film brought home the fantastic inevitability of alcohol as an ingredient in society. Again, we don't need to go through all the details of prohibition, but the fact was that this was the time in American history where legislators who presumably had good intentions felt that it was worthwhile attempting to remove the use of alcohol from society. It was a disastrous age for society. This was very well depicted in the widespread corruption and involvement of legislators being paid off, rival gangs murdering each other by the dozens, and so on.

It was a very hideous revelation of the fact that anyone who feels society can in any way eliminate or perhaps even minimize the use of alcohol is just dreaming. We've had a very horrible experiment, a social experiment, in trying to prevent its use completely and this was a total and abysmal failure. We should make it plain in our debate that it is an inevitable factor in our society.

Surely the answer is, as several Members of the opposition have pointed out, one of education and example. Parents have a: tremendous responsibility. If they do choose to drink in their home, they should do so in moderation and try and set a civilized example to their children.

Many points have been made by other Members, including the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). Another impression I got from listening to some of these comments was that the medical profession didn't seem to be aware of the problem either. That's just stretching things a bit far, Mr. Chairman. Any physician who has been in general practice for more than five minutes knows very well the number of problems which he has to handle, not only in the patient who is the alcoholic or the heavy drinker but in the beaten-up wife and the abused children, the debt problems the family gets into, and all the social consequences of heavy drinking or alcoholism. To leave the impression that the medical profession isn't aware of the problem is just not so.

Unfortunately, the medical profession has no better answers than anybody else. I'm not suggesting that they have some simple solutions to controlling the problem, but practising physicians certainly spend

[ Page 1263 ]

a great deal of time struggling both with the disease itself and the associated complications.

Just to finish, Mr. Chairman, again I have to be critical of the Attorney-General. I'm just fed up with reading clippings from the newspaper on statements by the Minister that there's going to be changes in the regulations. This is somewhat akin to the criticism, Mr. Attorney-General, that I had of you about the jails.

Just let me be specific. You're upset that the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) criticized you without giving examples. One or two very quick examples. For example, if you go to Hy's Steakhouse and you have a drink in the library room, and then you go to your supper in the dining room, you can't carry your glass in your hand from where you drink to 50 feet along a corridor to sit down and eat your supper. How long does it take to change a regulation like that?

In fact, when you're in the library room, you don't get to stand up and drink. I went to stand at the bar one night and thought it was like being in the old country, and they wouldn't let me stand up. They said, "Oh, you have to sit here."

I know it sounds like a little thing, but that's the whole point I'm making. If it takes us goodness knows how long to change a simple little regulation like that, how in heaven's name are we ever going to get round to the more complicated regulations that need to be changed?

This is another interesting little item which I'm sure the Attorney-General will appreciate since he frequently uses the Empress Hotel. He knows my daughter was serving as a waitress in that hotel. She couldn't get the job she was entitled to because she wasn't yet 19. She's not even allowed to carry the drink from the counter to the table where the customer is. She was substantially penalized in the income she could earn last summer because they wanted to give her the job but she's not 19 so she can't even carry the liquor, never mind drink it.

I think these regulations in this day and age are just ridiculous. Surely there should be some cognizance taken of the fact, for example, that we have students who have to earn a living during the summer, and they should not suffer this kind of difficulty in not even being able to hold a glass of liquor in their hand. This, I think, in terms of education is counter-productive on our younger people because she comes home to me and says, "No wonder society's crazy these days." Then she gives me what I think is a very valid argument. And I haven't got an answer.

One of the reasons I'm bringing it up, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman: "Well," she said, "you're in the House, you go down and do something about it." So I'm trying.

Of course, the question of drinks in a hotel room: I've got a clipping here from the Province October 30, 1973. It starts off with that same word the Attorney-General uses so frequently — "gradual". "'Gradual changes in B.C. liquor regulations will be introduced by the NDP government,' Attorney-General Macdonald said on Monday."

Then he went on to mention the changes which will take place, including the serving of liquor in hotel rooms and some of these other points. He's even willing to look at the fact that maybe we've got past the stage in society when you get drunk on election day and somebody sells or buys votes.

These are all points that.... Yes it's good Conservative thinking, but I might be quite frank and say that I put this resolution at our annual convention and it was defeated. (Laughter.) Nevertheless, I don't consider that I'm bound to just repeat parrot-fashion what a party convention decides. I happen to think, again, that this is an uncivilized approach to the drinking, and the more we crimp it around with restrictions and various unrealistic regulations which really don't hold much water when you stop to analyse them in a rational way, the more our young people see us treating the use of liquor with these ridiculous regulations, they begin to wonder if we ever make much sense. Then when we try to take a strong stand of some regulation or other on the use of drugs....

The answer I get from the young people is: "Well, don't you talk to me when we see what you adults are doing with liquor." So it creates a very difficult situation for progress, particularly when, as I say, the example we're setting doesn't stand up to too careful scrutiny or to rational debate. It seems to me that the Attorney-General would really make a tremendous gain in dealing with alcohol in a civilized and sane manner if very, very quickly he at least got these stupid, simple little regulations — even if it was just the four or five that I've mentioned — it would be showing you're well aware that the regulations are not really apt or suitable in today's society, and that you are, in fact, in a position to get simple changes made quickly.

As I say, this was October, Mr. Attorney-General. We're now into March, and this wasn't the first time, as I recall, that you had publicly stated this.

It may be out of order for just a moment, but it's the same in the health field. We get a great big blueprint to look away ahead five years, when there are certain things right tomorrow could be done without any great degree of deliberation or investigation or further public debate. This has been mentioned so many times in the House. We're talking about the fact that we are spending long hours of debate on your estimates; I can remember this being brought up under the Socred government. I used to sit and listen to the same points being made five years ago.

So, apart from anything else, Mr.

[ Page 1264 ]

Attorney-General, if you got these simple regulations changed quickly, we wouldn't have to debate this time next year. And I have the horrible feeling that maybe we will be, myself included.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to enter this debate, and I don't want to prolong it by going over a lot of facts and figures. But, really, as I sit here and listen to it, we sound like a lot of schizophrenics on the loose, including the last Member who spoke. And when I listen to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), I just about collapse on the spot.

Everybody knows that alcoholism is a serious problem. Look at England — go and see your new pals in government over there. I talked to one of the former lady Labour Ministers who was instrumental in liberalizing the liquor laws in England, along with the abortion laws.

They had lived with it for a time and she said, "Pat, whatever you do, don't go about this in the manner that the Attorney-General is displaying — an attitude of: 'let's keep it civilized, you know. We don't want to have people to be inconvenienced by having to go to the liquor store.' "

No one denies that liquor is a part of our life today and that prohibition is not the answer. But we're supposed to be mature, responsible adults and legislators who should be prepared to stand up and be counted on some of these issues.

The Minister of Health points out that he has to expand the facilities for the treatment of alcoholics in the hospital. Then the next moment he's advocating that we make these nice, cosy little neighbourhood pubs. I believe he favours the sale of wine and cheese and beer in the grocery stores. I say this is a schizophrenic attitude.

Mr. Attorney-General, who are you trying to kid when you stand up in this House — and I'm certainly not defending the current beer parlours — but you say that we envision these cosy little neighbourhood parlours with live entertainment and games — getting away from this forcing and pushing of the booze?

Mr. Attorney-General, how much does it cost to build that establishment? How much does it cost in terms of servicing and taxes on that establishment? Have you talked with the unions about the cost of providing live entertainment — the minimum wage law, the stand-by costs? Mr. Attorney-General — the cost in terms of staff.

There is no way in British Columbia — I don't have my figures here, but I worked it out and I have had other people work it out — that in the majority of areas of the lower mainland and even in the Okanagan, or in I would suggest, Fort St. John, Prince Rupert — any centralized area — can you possibly afford, on an economically-balanced basis, to provide the 30-seat, quiet, little neighbourhood pub with two glasses of beer an evening? You know, Mr. Attorney-General, as well as I know, well as these Members know and certainly as the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) must know, that it is not economically possible. Therefore, you're entwining it and enshrining it with all this glamour and glitter when, in fact, they are going to be pushing beer and wine, and whatever else they're licensed to sell, every bit as much as they are in the beer parlours in British Columbia today.

All I ask, Mr. Attorney-General, is let's be factual in this. I don't deny there are some changes needed. But let's not stand up here and acknowledge some of these crucial problems and then, because it sounds nicey-nicey and because, even as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, a lot of the doctors won't acknowledge the crucial situation in this area, let's lead the way; let's fact the facts. If the facts are against the best interests of society, then let's have the courage to say no, that's not right.

I'd like to be around, Mr. Member, when you get the first glass of beer down the back of your neck in one of these friendly, little neighbourhood pubs — I'm sure you won't be as docile as you were this afternoon. This is the reason that you're not allowed to carry beer around in beer parlours — people have two, or three or four drinks; they get a little tipsy and wander around...or maybe they've only had one drink, they're jostled and the beer goes down somebody's neck. The next thing you know, they're on their feet and we have a repeat performance of what almost happened out here in the corridor yesterday.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): How do you know?

MRS. JORDAN: To use England as an example of the pubs — if you talked to the authorities in the human resources area over there, they will name neighbourhood pubs — these cosy, friendly, little places — as one of the major problems in marital disorganization over there. This is where Pa stops on the way home, and the pretty little secretary is there on the way home — they have a nice cosy, beer....

MR. WALLACE: Sex and booze.

MRS. JORDAN: That's simplifying it.

I say again, talk to your colleagues in England because England has done a lot of studying on this. They feel that the neighbourhood pub is a very disrupting factor in the strength of family living over there. If you look at the English people, while they may have the finest soccer teams in the world, as a people they're the most unexercised people perhaps in the world.

Mr. Attorney-General, while there are some

[ Page 1265 ]

streamlinings needed in the liquor laws, I praise you for moving more cautiously. I would urge you to be more realistic than you were in this House this afternoon.

HON. MR. LEA: What's needed? Come on now, what's needed?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you yourself said you talked about the American way of life in terms of guns, and that this was flopping over into Canada. I suggest to you that all these things are underlying and intertwined factor in what doesn't appeal to us as Canadians about the American way of life.

I've lived in the States — we've lived in the States as a family. We lived in Texas, and we watched a man stand watering a lawn all day for 25 cents. Where did he go and spend his 25 cents? Not on his seven children at home, but right around the corner where the neighbourhood pub was.

Mr. Chairman, we want Canada to be Canada. People come to British Columbia because we're unique. I suggest to you that some of these what seem like particular laws, are in fact very much part of a very leveling influence in our society. We don't have the neon signs with the blaring pub signs. We don't have the murders in the neighbourhood pubs that they have both in England and in the United States. We don't have as much family breakdown through friendly, cosy drinking areas as they do in other countries. I'd just like to again say, Mr. Attorney-General, that I think that you should look at these changes with considerable caution. Let's be realistic and let's not use all of the statistics to prove that making booze more available is going to cure our ills because it isn't, Mr. Attorney-General.

Just on the wine industry in the Okanagan, I suggest that the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey not make his speech up there. There are many grape growers in British Columbia who are frozen to their land by this government, and I suggest that the government has an obligation to try and promote their product, hopefully not just through alcohol, but through other areas of B.C. grape-oriented products, jams and jellies, rather than the stiffer competition of import wines.

Let's face it, the quality of grapes that we can grow in British Columbia in relation to the various quality grapes that are needed for the very fine wines is extremely limited. If you've got a grape industry I don't think you should promote it through the sale of wines and getting into pop wines — I'd oppose this — but at least I don't think we should put them out of business unless we have no alternative.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I'll be rather brief but I thought I would like to rise in this debate. Being a little bit of an authority in regard to the subject that's being discussed, being a person that enjoys his beer and goes out occasionally and has one, I would just like to express my views.

MR. WALLACE: Did you ever spill it down anybody's back?

MR. LEWIS: No. You know, I've always drunk in moderation, but after listening to the last Member, I don't know, I may become an alcoholic.

MRS. JORDAN: I can drink you under the table anytime.

MR. LEWIS: In the riding that I represent, we have communities that are 30 to 35 miles from a place where they can get a glass of beer or a glass of wine. What happens on a Friday or Saturday night? These people must get into their cars. They must drive 25 or 30 miles to have an evening out in the tavern, or to be with people to have a little conversation and a drink. Then they get back in their car and drive home 25 or 30 miles. This is one of the reasons why we have so many tragic accidents in some of these areas.

I would like to say that I think we are going in the right direction by having these neighbourhood pubs in outlying areas in particular. In communities such as Celista in my area, where there's 500 people, on a Saturday night there's probably anywhere from 70 to 100 cars that drive to Chase. A lot of those people return home in a car when they shouldn't be driving. The Member stands up and says that making booze available causes a lot of alcoholics and causes a lot more problems, but it has been proven false many, many times over.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: I would suggest that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) take a trip across the border into the State of Washington.

MRS. JORDAN: I've lived there.

MR. LEWIS: The only people that you see down there that are being disorderly and drinking too much are Canadians on a Sunday. That's right. Because liquor isn't available in B.C. on a Sunday they cross the border to where there are taverns, they stay there, drink excessively and then drive back into B.C.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: It's too far from your riding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Shuswap continue, please? Order, please! I still have

[ Page 1266 ]

hopes of catching my 7:25 plane to Vancouver.

MR. LEWIS: I'll be brief. I think everybody in this House would have to agree that just because alcohol is available it's not necessary that you drink it. I have alcohol in my home all the time and there's weeks on end where I never have a drink out of the bottle. So your stand on this is absolutely false.

Vote 11 approved.

On vote 12: general administration, $1,141,484.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, earlier today we heard the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) rise to the defence of the Attorney-General when we were on an amendment to his salary vote. The Minister of Consumer Services rose to his defence and said, from the notes that I have down here, that her department was a child of the office of the Attorney-General and that she was eternally grateful to that Minister and his department for the help.

Well, I wouldn't like to tell you this and sort of embarrass the Attorney-General, but if in fact we do now have a Minister of Consumer Services, would the Attorney-General tell me why in his vote 12 there's a consumer affairs officer listed and the salary is listed under the Attorney-General's Department? Are we to assume by that that the Attorney-General has a little concern over the ability of the newly-appointed Minister, and therefore keeps her departmental personnel under his close scrutiny?

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Watch dog!

MR. SMITH: Watch dog?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Since the preparation of the estimates by order-in-council, the consumer affairs officer, who is Mike Hansen, a very capable man, was transferred to the other department.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, again it's no personal reflection on the Deputy Minister, but that's a very substantial increase form $27,000 to $40,000. As I say, I want to make it very plain that I'm not questioning the person concerned, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but there seems to be a variety through the estimates where the different Deputies are paid — let's get down to the nuts and bolts — different salaries. Does it mean that the Deputy of this department is worth $4,000 more than some of the others, or $3,000 more, or $2,000 more? It's a very substantial increase of the order of 50 per cent in one year. As I say, it doesn't seem to be consistent with other Deputies, and I thought that a Deputy was a certain grade of seniority and that it shouldn't matter which department you're in, whether it's Health or Education or A.G. I just would like to know what the yardstick is that's used to decide the Deputy's salary.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there's a grid established by order-in-council which gives a range for Deputies that does vary by department. In the larger — I don't say more important — departments, the range runs from $39,000 to $41,000, which includes the Attorney-General's Department. Mr. Vickers came in at $40,000 in the second step. In other departments that are less onerous, the three-year steps are at a lower level. Then below that you have Associate Deputy Ministers. So there is a difference established, rightly or wrongly, by the Minister of Finance and the Provincial Secretary in respect to different departments. Rightly or wrongly, they're not treated equally in terms of the payment of their Deputies.

MR. WALLACE: In other words, it is a cabinet decision on advice of the Minister of Finance and the Provincial Secretary. Will this be negotiable in the future? Do they not come under the new provisions of the civil service government outline?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. It's not in civil service bargaining.

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: administration, incidentals and contingencies, $6,500 — approved.

On vote 14: justice and courts, supreme and county courts — $1,411,330.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to know why "temporary assistance" has been doubled. It would strike me that supreme and county courts should be receiving not temporary assistance but full-time assistance. I don't understand why we've doubled that to $200,000.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's simply the load of judicial work. It includes the provincial court as well as the higher courts. I think, where we in the provincial courts after a strike situation.... Of course, this is looking into the future that we're talking about, isn't it? So I shouldn't mention that, but that was a case where we hired a lot of extra temporary people because we set up ad hoc courts to get through. But it's simply the pressure of judicial business. Your point is that they should be integrated into the system, I take it, Mr. Member. I think that's something we should look at,

[ Page 1267 ]

because we don't believe in temporary assistance as such or casual employment. As we move toward reforming the justice system I would think there would be less casual and more permanent trained personnel.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Attorney-General would amplify his earlier statement about looking into the future on a strike. I may not have heard it correctly but....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, this is for the next year. That's what I meant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is it just simply anticipation of troubles in the future?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I was just wondering, Mr. Attorney-General, if this is the point where these sheriffs' training will come in.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's in a later vote.

Vote 14 approved.

On vote 15: justice and courts, coroners' inquests and inquiries, $250,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, there's a substantial increase from $175,000 to $250,000. Does this mean that citizens serving at coroners' inquests are to have additional remuneration? If so, could you tell us approximately by how much?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we've increased the fees for coroners' jurors up to $ 10, the same as in other courts, and we have increased the fees of doctors. For the first time — I should have corrected that — we've begun to pay by legislation in this House for a fee to people who sit on a coroner's jury. In addition, we've improved the remuneration of coroners and we've improved the remuneration of doctors who attend at inquests and do autopsies and give evidence.

Vote 15 approved.

On vote 16: justice and courts, administration of justice, $5,653,000.

MR. SMITH: I notice that the amount of money appropriated here for legal aid is increased by $1 million from $1.5 million to $2.5 million. I'm not suggesting that that is not a reasonable figure, taking into consideration the fact that we wish to provide more legal aid for people who find themselves in a position where they need the services of the law profession and can't afford it, but would the Attorney-General, just in broad terms, give the criteria that are involved for the granting of legal aid or the withholding of it? What basis do you work on in this respect? Is it just upon application from anyone, or how do you operate it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It depends on means, and it's fixed by the Legal Aid Society. These regulations change from time to time, but a person applies to a district adviser. If they have the means to conduct their own litigation, they do it themselves. If they don't, they receive legal aid. Legal aid, of course, has been extended in the last year into the civil field, beginning with family matters and some other civil matters. It's been extended in the sense that we've opened the walk-in offices in a number of centres in the province, including Victoria. I don't see the young lawyer who was here last night who is the director of the legal aid office, Keith Hamilton, in Victoria, but he's doing very good work.

This figure doesn't include the federal contribution, which is based upon 50 cents per capita or up to 90 per cent of the amount of our legal aid devoted to criminal work, whichever is the smaller.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To add to that $2.5 million, what's the difference in the federal contribution? If we've upped the provincial contribution by $1 million, is there a substantial difference in the federal? I imagine the formula may be the same, but are there any changes other than according to formula?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The federal contribution will go up because we will be spending more as a province upon legitimate criminal legal aid that is recognized under the agreement, I think the federal contribution was about $1 million last year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you expect it to be up $500,000?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think it would be up to $1.2 million, or something of that sort, because of the additional money we will be putting into that side of legal aid.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the really progressive areas in the province where we're providing more legal aid. I talked at some length with prisoners in the two jails in this area and I gather that quite often they're never really asked whether they need legal aid or told whether or not it's available. One inmate told me that you're not even told or made aware of the fact that you can have counsel. Other times, if you do seek counsel and legal

[ Page 1268 ]

aid, the remand business goes on ad infinitum.

One prisoner told me that he had 14 remands before he finally got his case heard. I couldn't understand why this was, and he said that either the counsel wasn't available or it took that length of time to get the counsels for the defence and the Crown together at the same time. This case of his went on for many weeks before finally, after 14 remands, he had his case decided.

I don't profess to know all the angles to this, but it seemed to me that two things come into it, namely the question of whether they need counsel and are aware that they can have counsel, and then after that comes a decision as to whether or not they should have legal aid.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us: are there guidelines for judges to ensure that the prisoner is first of all made aware of the fact that he is entitled to have counsel, whether or not he has the money to pay for it, and if he does ask for counsel, what are the guidelines in determining whether or not he gets legal aid? It does seem to me a pretty important aspect in the provision of fair play and justice to the individual.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is an area that has been neglected and one where improvement is badly needed. We must publicize the legal aid services that are available to people in trouble to a much greater extent than we have. One Member, the other day, made a suggestion about a poster or leaflet in the prison itself. I think that's a good suggestion. Sometimes a person does not see a judge for some period of time. It can't be more than a certain period, I know, but it takes a little time.

In addition, we think we would like to see duty counsel in the courts in the major centres. Now, that's not always easy to do, just because of the availability of personnel, but it's one of the things we have in mind.

So we do need to publicize our activities and supply that help on the road toward legal aid or other assistance that is lacking at the present time.

I'm informed that we do have a duty counsel in the Victoria police court at the present time.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Very briefly, Mr. Attorne -General, about the Law Reform Commission, I'd just like to suggest that we'd very much like to see the base of it broadened to include some representatives from the community at large. We've always contended that lawyers did not corner the market on justice, and we feel that since the law applies to all of us we should have some say, too, in ways in which we'd like to see it changed. That's just a suggestion, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just in terms of technically drafting a statute such as the expropriation Act, that happens to be at a certain point a technical, legal job. But before you reach that stage there should be, wherever possible, public hearings, public representations and community input. So I agree with the suggestion.

I hope to have a full-time chairman of the Law Reform Commission within the next three or four weeks.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. We may even file one in the Legislature — not for passage at this session, I don't want to commit myself on that, but so that people can look at it. First reading?

Vote 16 approved.

On vote 17: justice and courts, justice planning and research unit, $185,740.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this one we definitely have to question because it's never come up before. We have virtually $200,000 under "justice planning and research," and perhaps the best thing we can do is have the Attorney-General start off by telling us why we have a new programme, whether any of these functions have been carried out before elsewhere, and give us a few ideas of what the programmes all about.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is really a recommendation of the task force under Dr. Matheson with his fellow commissioners. It's the provision for the planning unit in the Attorney-General's department to integrate the system, as I've said many times, from the police function at the pick-up level or summons level to the corrections side.

Really for the first time we have a good research programme. We have taken people from the Corrections Branch into this planning unit who were really an adjunct simply to the present system. They're now engaged in planning in the whole realm of the administration of justice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A query on Dr. Matheson's role: is he still working on the drug programme? Has the abandonment of the proposals of Dr. Matheson become formal? Has he switched to other areas? I think that Dr. Matheson has much to contribute, from what we've read about him so far. Not all of it is good, but all of it is interesting. I would wonder whether or not he's going to continue in the area of putting forth new ideas on drugs, or whether or not he's going to be subordinated to Peter Stein and the commission.

[ Page 1269 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Dr. Matheson, of course, as head of this planning unit, is very fully engaged at the present time because of our programme of assumption of the municipal courts by the province. There's a tremendous amount of research into how the system is working, its personnel, and so forth. He is very fully engaged at the present time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's the point I'm trying to get at. Actually the transfer of municipal responsibility to the province comes under the next vote and I'll be questioning that in due course. But it appears to me that Dr. Matheson is no longer actively engaged in anything to do with drugs. The Minister nods his head.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, he has no drug related study underway at the present time. He happens to be engaged on other things.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I appreciate the reply of the Attorney-General because that's something that's worried us for many days — the role of Dr. Matheson in the future of British Columbia justice with relation to the drug problem. We understand now that he's actually working on development of judicial systems in the transfer to the province of the municipal responsibility. Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: Briefly, I'd like to follow up with that last question. Can we assume, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, that Dr. Matheson will continue to have a role in the developing of the kinds of programmes which he himself has outlined as being considered advisable, and a very reasonable pilot project that we talked about as varying degree of compulsory detention of a drug addict in a non-jail kind of facility, but without his freedom?

Since Dr. Matheson is widely knowledgeable about this, and has put forward his programme based on his study of such facilities elsewhere, in Baltimore and so on, surely we are not going to lose the services of Dr. Matheson in the actual implementing of that kind of programme at its most crucial phase, right when we're, starting it off.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I just want to get clarification on the point. From the answer to the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the Attorney-General's answer reads as though Dr. Matheson is to be quite apart from that particular aspect of the Attorney-General's responsibilities. I would certainly say that this is a very unfortunate decision on somebody's part and I wonder if the Attorney-General could be more specific in his answer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, of course Dr. Matheson and the planning unit still have to look at the prison population, the convictions, the addiction problem, the trafficking problem, because that's part of the research into criminal justice. But in terms of developing youth policies in that field, this planning unit would not be the body because this Legislature has established them under the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, there's no change in the commission.

Vote 17 approved.

On vote 18: justice and courts, $15 million.

MR. SMITH: This is a new vote in the Attorney-General's estimates and it anticipates the transfer of the responsibility for the judicial systems in the province from the municipalities to the Department of the Attorney-General. I note that the expenditure indicated by the vote is $15 million.

In previous discussions that we have had concerning the operation of the judicial system in the province, the Attorney-General and others have indicated that the $15 million, as I understand it, is a gross figure for the operation of the courts in the province. Offsetting against that will be the revenue that comes in in the way of fines and penalties, et cetera — I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood of $9 million, as I recall.

So really the net expense to the province would not be $15 million; it would be the difference between the fines received and the actual gross operating expenses of the courts.

At one time the Attorney-General suggested in the budget debate that there was a provision for the revenue to come in through the Department of the Minister of Finance.

I've looked at the breakdown of revenue as it's shown on page N4 of our estimates books, and the only thing that I can see, Mr. Attorney-General, is revenue from fines and penalties which has increased from $2.4 million to $3 million, a net difference of $600,000.

I would like to know from the Attorney-General: where do you include the revenue, the increased revenue that you will receive as a result of taking over the operations of all the courts in the province from the municipal governments?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Consolidated revenue.

[ Page 1270 ]

MR. SMITH: But, Mr. Attorney-General, what I'm trying to suggest to you is that in consolidated revenue, where it's broken down by division as to where the revenue comes from, there's no provision for that. Look on page N4; you can look at the revenue. It's listed: property taxes, social services taxes, et cetera, et cetera, and we finally get down to the bottom of page N4 where we see fines and penalties, and the only increase that's shown is $600,000. Something doesn't add up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To suggest to him why it doesn't add up, may I suggest that we're into the area now, a very interesting area, of returning the fines to the municipalities? The municipalities in some cases broke even on their administration of justice, and some made money.

Some fined their people a little more than the cost to administer justice. So we're in a situation that by taking over the legal system, by taking over the courts, the Attorney-General was, in fact, depriving municipalities of revenue, and this was something they were concerned about.

Now I trust that the anomaly which the Hon. Member for Peace River pointed out means that the fine revenue will in fact actually go back to the municipalities concerned.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: General revenue and the estimate of fine revenue based upon 1974 to 1975 is $6,846,257. In the succeeding years I can't tell you whether that will grow or not, but that's our estimate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, can I ask the Attorney-General, as this is an appropriate place under this vote 18, could he tell us whether or not the municipalities are going to be getting some compensating financial benefit or revenue from the government to make up for the loss of fines?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, most municipalities benefit. I've got them municipality by municipality. There are some municipalities that lose because they were receiving more in fine revenue than they were paying out in their justice system.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Give us Victoria.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They question Victoria. Victoria is here. In 1972, for example, their costs of justice were $596,000 — I'll leave out the other figures — and their revenue was $539,000. They are one of those municipalities that would have an anticipated loss of about $80,000 per year. The question as to whether anything should be done in a phasing-in period in municipalities that lose somewhat is a matter for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

Vote 18 approved.

On vote 19; justice and courts, judicial conferences, $21,000.

MR. SMITH: I still feel that there is an unanswered question here, Mr. Attorney-General, that somewhere in the calculation of revenue which we have before us, as part of our estimates, and the calculation of expenditures for your department which now includes the cost of the administration of justice in the province, somebody goofed. If it's $15 million in cost and there's $6 million, $7 million or $8 million dollars if revenue, then either your department should show just a net, or on the other side in the revenue side of the budget you should show the revenue; and we don't have the revenue in the estimated revenue for this year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At the time the estimates are prepared, which is during the fall, really...and then they go to Treasury Board, some of the other things. Don't forget this is almost a breakneck-speed thing; we're trying to do the whole thing by April 1st. We did not have the compensating revenue figure estimates in sufficient detail to put them in. That's wrong in a sense, but we couldn't do anything about it because of the time frame.

MR. SMITH: I accept your explanation.

Vote 19 approved.

On vote 20: justice and courts, Provincial Court Act, $2,820,200.

MR. SMITH: We canvassed this matter to some degree in the Minister's salary vote, but I'd just like to go a little further along the line. On this matter of the payment of judges and comparing the scale of the salary on the provincial level to the federal level, is it the intention of the Attorney-General to try to equalize the provincial court judges to a level comparable to the federal level of payment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We are asking for a substantial adjustment in the month of April of this year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We also have the problem of trying to determine whether the votes are for actual expenses of salaries at the present time, or whether there are allowances in them for future salaries. Do we understand the Minister to say that the increase there of $700,000 is for anticipated increases in salaries, or is it actual at the present time?

[ Page 1271 ]

It's actual, is it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It does not include the additional funds that we will need to upgrade those salaries.

MR. CURTIS: Would the Attorney-General just go through this once again? Is this not a matter which has been before him for quite some time and remains unresolved? He gives the impression that an increase is imminent, but I'm not reassured.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there was a substantial increase, after I assumed the office of Attorney-General, in the Provincial Court judge's salaries last year. After the Legislature rose, I can't remember the exact time but I think it was in April, my recollection is that the salary level generally went from $22,000 to $26,000 with a comparable increase in the case of district judges. So we've made real progress in this field in terms of upgrading and I will be going back to Treasury Board again this spring.

MR. CURTIS: But that was approximately one year ago, give or take some weeks.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right.

Vote 20 approved.

Vote 21: Justice and Court Sheriff's Office, $1,234,694 — approved.

On vote 22: Justice and Courts, Official Reporters, $1,087,962.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's puzzling to me, Mr. Chairman, why travel has increased substantially in 21, but there's been reduction in office expenses, and motor vehicles and other things. Why the substantial increase in travel and reduction in the others?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you on 21 or 22?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: 21.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're on 22. 21 has passed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, can I ask the question anyway?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Hon. Attorney-General wish to respond?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Motor vehicles, for example, Mr. Chairman, has dropped from $142,000 down to $29,000. A very, very substantial drop. Then travel has gone from $51,000 to $74,000. It's a curious thing. Did they buy a fleet last year? Have we got a whole fleet of cars full of grilles on them, or things of that nature that they don't need any more? What's the explanation for it? I might say I congratulate someone who has managed to reduce. I think it's probably one of the very first major expenditures which has been reduced but in vote 29 you have $142,500 last year and this year $29,000. It's a great improvement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The province assumed six sheriff's offices about a year ago. In previous estimates we purchased new vehicles. We did not have to repeat that expenditure in the next year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question was on vote 21 which has already passed.

On vote 22.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sundry reporters and transcripts has virtually doubled and I wonder whether the Attorney-General would give me a good reason.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's simply an estimate of the future calls upon this fund, the number of inquiries, inquests, things of that kind and improvement in the remuneration of court reporters.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can we assume then, Mr. Chairman, that the budgeting last year was inadequate? The expenditure last year — I wonder if I could have the figure of the expenditure last year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes we did. We underestimated our expenses for the previous year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What were the expenditures last year then?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Could you send me a note and I'll try and get that for you.

Vote 22 approved.

On vote 23: Registration Land Registry Office, $2,741,606.

MR. SMITH: I'd just like the Attorney-General to bring us up to date on the position with regard to the registration and changes of titles within the Land Registry Offices. Do we still have a delay and a backlog of registrations and requests for changes of title in the offices? If so, what is the Attorney-General doing to precipitate some action in

[ Page 1272 ]

this regard?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: MR. Chairman, as you may know, in the City of Victoria we're experimenting with instant registration so there's no delay. In the City of New Westminster where the worst backlog was, we have substantially improved that by opening a new office. We're really catching up with the backlog problem.

MR. SMITH: Are you reviewing computer programming within the Land Registry Office?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes.

MR. SMITH: Well then, Mr. Attorney-General, if you're moving in that regard, do you not think that perhaps the policy of the government to relieve people of private ownership of land in British Columbia has some effect on the number of people that you'll require in land registry offices in the future?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we'll still have to register complaints.

MR. WALLACE: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. On that same theme. Is there any plan to open an office for the people in the Okanagan who presently have to go to Kamloops to register titles?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no. We haven't planned that. There's such an advantage to large-scale operation in land registry in a sense, that once you begin spotting them out you've got to be a little careful about it.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, but Mr. Chairman, people have to travel and take time from work to go to the office and it isn't always done on one visit and I think that's just another simplistic answer.

It may well be that it's like this whole change in the administration of justice — the people are going to get into the hands of the computer and technology and all the super-duper magnificent technology. The Deputy's smiling. He got an earful from the lawyers at Harrison Hot Springs. I don't know if this is valid, but it appears as though the whole system was going to go once again into super-duper buxom equipment machinery, but the poor individual has to take a day off work and lose a day's pay to travel from Penticton up to Kamloops to get to a registry office. Again it's a question of let's remember that we're dealing with people and individuals and efficiency is one thing but it isn't the whole problem.

I think with respect, Mr. Attorney-General, through the Chair, that it may be worthy of consideration that just not getting all the information and machines and computers in one spot is necessarily in the best interests of the individual. But I take it from your answer that you don't think there's any problem in having to travel from the South Okanagan to....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, of course there's mail service and the land registries, accept and receive applications and return them by mail. But in addition, as we modernize the system and computerize operations there can be terminal points out in the smaller towns which will be fed directly into the central land registry systems.

Vote 23 approved.

On vote 24: Companies office, $350,898.

MR. SMITH: On vote 24, Companies office, the Attorney-General of course introduced a year ago a new Companies Act. Does the Attorney-General have any statistics yet on additional financial imposts and burdens that he has imposed upon all businesses within the province who must now abide by the provisions of the new Companies Act, particularly with respect to keeping the records of every company office affected in the province, that does business in the Province of British Columbia? Have you got any statistics to indicate how much additional expense this has created for businesses in the province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the Act is going well. It came into force on October 1. Many of the businesses out in the province for which I can't possibly pick up figures have combined their operations, recording offices, so I don't think the expense is large.

MR. SMITH: I can't agree with that, Mr. Attorney-General. I've received reports from many businesses that their legal and accounting costs have doubled with the impact of the new Companies Act and in order to keep abreast of the provisions of the Companies Act, that they feel that their costs have doubled in the last year and that trend will continue as long as those provisions are being met by every company in the province. This is the report I get.

Vote 24 approved.

Vote 25: Public Trustees office, $685,216 — approved.

On vote 26: Insurance and Real Estate office, $246,548.

MR. BENNETT: I almost missed it, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't hear it. With regard to the British Columbia

[ Page 1273 ]

Automobile Insurance Board, the Attorney-General has regulation and inspection of insurance offices. I'm concerned about the insurance service that might be paid for by people and not received and I refer to ICBC possibly and the problem with the north end of Vancouver Island being cut off from ICBC fulfilling contracts which have been bought and paid for. That is, these people can't get any repair service at all.

I wonder, nobody can get a car fixed and a contract is not being honoured. Now a premium has been paid for this contract and this service isn't being delivered. Now does the Attorney-General's Department check that the service that's being paid for is not being delivered?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ICBC is a separate code and a separate department. No, we do not check it.

MR. BENNETT: It doesn't come under the...?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the Department of Transport and Communications.

MR. BENNETT: Well what about the British Columbia Automobile Insurance Board? That comes under the Attorney-General's Department.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's phased out. Yes, it isn't even in here now.

MR. BENNETT: And you take no authority over the insurance. It doesn't come under your department at all?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's another Minister.

Vote 26 approved.

On vote 27, Securities Commission office, $449,236.

MR. SMITH: With respect to the operation of the Securities Commission, does the Attorney-General contemplate new securities legislation at all?

Is he looking into the idea of new securities legislation in the province, and if so, will he take into consideration the suggestions that I have made during the debate of his estimates with regard to restricting the powers of government in the operation of Crown corporations and businesses that they may own equity either outright or an equity position?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Following the Companies Act, the Securities Act is in process of being revised and examined and so is the Societies Act, and your suggestions will be considered.

Vote 27 approved.

On vote 28: Credit Unions office, $129,356.

MR. SMITH: I realize that the Attorney-General has some strong opinions on the operations of credit unions in the Province of British Columbia, and has from time to time indicated that he would like to see them branch out, I believe, into other business. Is it his intention to broaden the powers presently allowed to credit unions in the province in order that they might operate without any more restrictions than any other banking institutions? What do you have in mind in that respect?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have improved their powers, for example, to receive and to hold the funds and invest in government funds and things of that kind. We've given them that kind of help, but they cannot be banks because we do still have a constitutional problem.

MR. SMITH: Well, is it the intent of the Attorney-General to recommend to the Minister of Finance a major change in the investment portfolio of the province so that credit unions are used more than the conventional banks?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Finance has heard you.

Vote 28 approved.

On vote 29: Fire Marshal's office, $441,392.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney-General knows that we've had a number of discussions about the idea of combining gas inspection services, electrical inspection services, and boiler inspection services under one agency. There are many diverse opinions on this particular matter but I would like to know if the Attorney-General intends to proceed along that direction and combine a of those services under one agency?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've discussed this with the Minister of Public Works, but there's been no definitive decision reached.

Vote 29 approved.

On vote 30: film classification office, $ 64,734.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This is the dirty movie section, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know why we waste our time, each province in turn spending $64,734, when every province has to do exactly the same thing for exactly the same movies. It's a type of thing

[ Page 1274 ]

where I think co-ordination between provinces would make an immense amount of sense, and I wonder whether indeed we are getting that now.

I fail to see why the tender eyes and the ears of little children in Ontario are that much different from the tender eyes and ears of little children in British Columbia, and it seems to be utter lunacy for us to spend money as we are doing to have projectionists and have four people to sit through movie after movie after movie, and decide whether it's a dirty movie or it isn't or it's an X-rated or a Black Panther rated, or a general rated movie, or something of that nature. It just seems nonsense for us to have an office of this nature when every other province apparently has the same thing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The suggestion will be considered, but we're under the legislation of the Legislature, as you know, and it was based upon a recommendation of a committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask what the Attorney-General is doing, or considering? Has he got anybody studying this, co-ordinating with his colleagues across the country? We're told the that law co-ordination is one of the areas where the provinces co-operate more effectively and it would surely be in the area where we could save the taxpayer a few pennies, like $64,734 to be exact, and at the same time get exactly the same protection that is provided by this film censor that we presently have.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, apart from the classification, does it come under this section, the actual implementation of the adherence to the classification? In other words, I have complaints from parents that their children can easily gain access to films which are classified as being restricted to over 18 et cetera, and I'm wondering if the Attorney-General is satisfied.

It's rather like the question from the Member for Saanich and the Islands, (Mr. Curtis) about liquor being available to underage children. Is this being implemented as efficiently as the Minister considers is possible under the circumstances?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, under this vote there is not an inspection service that visits theatres throughout the province. That is a matter for the theatres throughout the province. That is a matter for the theatre owners to live up to the law and police. If there are complaints I'd be glad to receive them.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Attorney-General is tiring. It's been a long day. Oh, he's fine, okay. He doesn't look very well but he feels fine.

Could he take just a few moments to discuss with the committee his views with respect to the classification of films since this is the vote under discussion? I subscribe to the point of view that too often we direct our attention towards so-called pornographic movies, when I can think of nothing more pornographic than some of the violence that is permitted to slip through.

I think that violence is far more obscene than some of the movies to which we direct a lot of our attention, than sex. Yes, it's a great word and I really think that the sooner we shake off our Victorian attitudes towards the word, the better. How about the violence? The blood spilling, the brutality, all the obscenity that falls into that category which is readily available to kids, and has been for as long as the motion picture has been an art, so-called.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Basically I agree, but basically this is a classification vote that we're dealing with and we did have a committee of the Legislature. But the point that you made is a very valid one and I think that they look in terms of classification, or possibly cutting. They look and they certainly should look as much at violence as anything else. I'll be glad to convey your opinions to Ray McDonald.

MR. CURTIS: I'd appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I would commend to the Attorney-General in all seriousness, that it's this area of films today to which a great deal of attention should be directed, rather than just satisfying a few of the people who are upset about the odd movie which is sexually frank.

Vote 30 approved.

On vote 31: Racing Commission, $162,560.

MR. SMITH: I see that this vote contemplates two new positions, a chief investigator and a security inspector, that is not previously provided for under the vote of the Racing Commission. Would the Attorney-General enlighten us as to why these two positions became necessary — is it because of some sort of problem experienced in the operation of the racing commission, or the track itself? Just why do we have those two positions when we didn't require them before?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's the recommendation of the Racing Commission to tighten up their security and their ability to carry out their regulations and their functions. They have recommended it for some time. Finally they have received the positions they have been seeking.

Vote 31 approved.

[ Page 1275 ]

On vote 32: Policing by Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $14,651,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: $14.5 million, Mr. Chairman, is a fairly big one. Now I wonder whether the Attorney-General could inform us what happens after '76? Have they any commitments from the federal government on continuation? Any indication of whether or not the federal portion of the RCMP costs in the Province of British Columbia will continue to be paid by the federal government? Or are we simply carrying on blindly without any indication and guidelines as to what will happen in the future? And while he's answering that question, perhaps he'd give us an estimate of the amount of federal funds which are needed to supplement this $14,600,000 figure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I can't give you indications of the federal government's thinking or the posture they will take in negotiations which will probably begin, possibly even before the end of this year. I just don't think I should begin to try and relate that.

In terms of what the federal contribution is, you'd have to take the formula and work backwards really, because it's 51 per cent in terms of the provincial contingent of the RCMP so you double our expenditure on that item.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you reckon it's going to take forever?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Generally speaking it's about 51 per cent of what you see here, that they're spending.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: About 50 per cent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Actually, this is 49 per cent this year and theirs is 51.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So we can assume that in actual fact the cost of policing by the RCMP in B.C. is about $30 million. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Attorney-General would indicate what his views are because it would be most unfortunate if the province lost the RCMP in the future.

I feel that we should do everything we can to continue to use the national force, particularly in Western Canada where the RCMP developed, and also developed the respect and esteem that it has around the world. I feel it's important in Western Canada for us to keep the RCMP and I would like to know if he can give us any indication at all whether the McMorran proposals that he gave us the other day, whether the Sheriff's office changes which he talked about, whether or not he's in favour of continuing with RCMP policing in the province or whether he is thinking of something else.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the answer is: we're in favour of continuation of these policing contracts and not only the services we receive under them but also the financial benefit we get from the existing formula.

Vote 32 approved.

Vote 33: police services and sundry incidental police expenses, $300,000 — approved.

On vote 34: correction services, $19,937,429.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney-General has indicated in speeches and in press releases that he's in favour of remand centres within the correctional system in the Province of British Columbia, and he's prepared to move in, that direction. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but I think that generally summarizes his position.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he is going to proceed with the proposed remand centre that was rumoured for some time. As a matter of fact, a location was picked out in an area in Coquitlam. I believe there was some opposition to the location by the Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett). But I'm sure that the Attorney-General is concerned about this matter and he'll press ahead irrespective of the opposition that he might have received or might be receiving from the Member for Coquitlam. If he's really interested in remand centres then he should not be handicapped in the operation and instigation of these centres by the attempts of one of the Members of the House to have the remand centre located in some other area of the province.

While I'm at it, I'd also like to know if he's going to do anything about updating the remand centre and facilities in Oakalla, or what the general picture is in that respect.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We think the proper place for a remand centre to serve the lower mainland, the priority is in the City of Vancouver — close to the courts, close to other services. That's the place for it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of items under this vote 34. We've heard a great deal about the need for rehabilitation, yet apparently for the entire correctional services, there is $7,000 for libraries; exactly the same as last year. In other words, a reduction in the number of books they're able to purchase because of inflation.

We see a very minor increase in terms of medical supplies. I'd like to query the Minister on that.

[ Page 1276 ]

We see the figure in vote 12, earnings: from $219,000 to $220,000. It's listed as an expense, which I just don't understand. I thought that "earnings" might have well been a credit. Perhaps he could tell me about that.

The other questions I have I'll go into, perhaps, after he has commented on those particular ones.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the earnings, of course, is an expenditure for what we pay inmates for the work they do. In terms of the lack of increase in the library allowance....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I still don't understand that one. Earnings are pay?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, inmates do work which should be paid for.

In terms of the library: you must remember that in the Justice Development Fund that has already been passed by the House, there is room for not only research and innovative things, but also expenditures throughout the justice system, and we include the prison system in that. So there could be increases, even though they're not here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but the trouble is that the line-by-line is lost, Mr. Attorney-General, and our ability to compare library, for example, makes no sense at all if you tell us that library is in some vote that we didn't know about and which we've already passed. This is the difficulty we face. I would like to see a little better accounting next year, please.

The items you have here — clothing and uniforms — my question to you is whether or not this clothing and uniforms are for prisoners or whether they're for guards. There's a fair difference. Is this for the staff at the institutions, or is it for the inmates themselves? That's 009 — is that for staff or is it for inmates?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Staff.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's for staff. How about inmates? Where does their clothing allowance come in?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In 011, laundry and dry goods.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So 011 is laundry and dry goods. That's ... well, okay. That is the difficulty I have. You tell us a lot of things are in other areas, and at the same time the logical assumption is that clothing and uniforms would be found under clothing and uniforms. Apparently that is not so. It's found under something else — dry goods. Well, I don't understand that very well. I think it should be improved next year because the breakdown's appalling.

Supplies for training, 024 and school supplies and services. Why does school supplies and services drop by half? If we're engaged in correction and rehabilitation, surely we should be increasing the amount of school supplies and services. Again, the question is whether it's for inmates or prisoners. You've mixed up inmates and prisoners in this whole vote in a way that makes it impossible to understand.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The make-up is under 045, fees for services rendered. That has been increased.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In 045, fees for services rendered, and that is the sum we are to substitute for training?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's for teachers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know, really and truly, this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Under training and under school supplies and services, and supplies for training — I would think we would have that broken out, that we would have the educational part of this broken out. Instead of that, down in 045, which has gone up from $10,000 to $133,400, just a great big lump sum, we find items which should more properly be elsewhere. But that's a criticism, and obviously you've just done a bad job in drawing this up.

Psychiatric services: why is there only $2,000 for psychiatric services in the whole of the corrections services? With a $20 million vote, you find $2,000 for psychiatric services. Psychiatric services, 032, or is that down under professional services or some other weird heading? I just don't understand it. It seems $2,000 probably wouldn't get a psychiatrist for three weeks or two weeks.

HON. MR. COCKE: It's under the medical plan.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, then what on earth is this one here for then?

HON. D. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): Special consultants, Mr. Member. When we had to go outside the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could you speak into the mike so we could have an answer recorded?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's for special consultants — when we had to go outside the usual medical services, we had that amount.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Still, that's not an

[ Page 1277 ]

explanation of why it remains there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes it does. When we had to go, on occasion, to Stellacomb and hire a child psychiatrist or a consultant on the American side of the border, that was always a vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Payment for Americans, in other words — or people outside of the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: People outside the province on special consulting outside of normal service we may or may not have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's fair enough. But you must admit that for a layman to read these things, this vote, it's impossible really to understand at all. Psychiatric services outside the province, might be a better heading for that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's true.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The training academy has actually dropped in the vote. Now why is that, Mr. Attorney-General? The amount of money for the training academy, not just inflation, but it's actually dropped in dollar terms. Why that?

I think perhaps this vote should be pulled, and on Monday we might have better explanations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think there are any eggs in this one. We've got a lot of yeggs locked up.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He doesn't understand it, nor do you.

AN HON. MEMBER: McGeer understands it, but he went home to Vancouver. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is the estimate for next year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In the training academy: first, is it officers or inmates? Secondly, why the reduction?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's an officers' training programme, and in addition to that, we're working out new courses at BCIT as part of the justice development system.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Good. The same questions apply for No. 036, training grants programme: officer or inmates and why no change? Apparently there's been a drop in real terms. In other words, thanks to inflation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's for officers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Same thing?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, can I ask about 037: fund to assist probationers and parolees? This has dropped from $66,000 to $5,000. Surely we should be assisting parolees, probationers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's based on an estimate based on the use of the fund in previous years, and our projection of what will likely be required in the coming year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Was it over-budgeted last year?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And what was the expenditure last year, then?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you know, honestly you can't answer.... I'll give you the answer to that question you asked about 20 minutes ago, if I'm not out of order. You asked what was spent on official court reporters for the previous year. It was $293,303.41.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That was the question I wanted to take on notice.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You know, some of this detail it's a little bit.... It's better to ask beforehand. I can get the answers, but it does take a little time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One of the things that we do in the opposition is look at these, try and figure them out, and we assume the Minister can. I apologize for the fact that he can't, but there's not much I can do about it.

What are grants for special projects? — the last line. I'll leave you with that because you clearly don't know much about the rest of these things — 047, grants for special projects.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's a new vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What is it for?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's post-release for inmates in halfway projects, and things of that kind.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Halfway projects.

[ Page 1278 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Halfway houses. Special projects and things of that kind.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And where previously did this vote come out of?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We didn't have it before.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You never had any provincial support for halfway houses before?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. It isn't the support for halfway houses. It's support for projects that can be usefully developed within those halfway houses. It's a new proposal.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I just would prefer, Mr. Chairman, that next year this vote 34 be better broken down and better explained because it's really quite impossible for laymen to understand this type of presentation.

MR. WALLACE: Just a brief comment. I agree that this is rather an important vote. While I am sure the figures could have been better arranged, could we just establish one point perhaps, Mr. Attorney-General: that there is a more serious effort to provide educational services within jails? I find that the idea of boredom and sheer lack of any goal in jail is the most demoralizing aspect perhaps.

The statistics show, I think, that something in the nature of 20 to 30 per cent of inmates are illiterate. It's not that I'm suggesting you teach them Greek, Russian or geometry; I'm just suggesting that there is a tremendous opportunity, in a rehabilitative sense, to provide a much better degree of basic education within the jail system. Very quickly, just let me comment.

For example, at William Head there are inmates there of very high intelligence, some of them with university degrees in various subjects, who would appreciate nothing more than being taken, let us say, to Wilkinson Road to provide education and teaching of various kinds to the inmates of Wilkinson Road; whereas at Wilkinson Road all we have are two very well-motivated ladies who provide some education. But the potential is there to serve two purposes: to help the inmate who needs the education, and to avail ourselves of the services which other inmates with training and qualification would be more than happy to provide. It would give them a sense of purpose.

If there is one theme that comes through, it is education and work as being the two basic elements in any successful rehabilitation programme. Many of the inmates would be very interested in getting involved in some kind of educational programme, inmates who are in a position to teach — and some of them are in there for many years, the ones I talked to — highly educated, articulate people who could be serving a very useful purpose to rehabilitate the illiterate members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you look at 045, in fees for service rendered, you will find we bring in educational teams from Douglas College and things of that kind. That's happening also in the north in the institutions up there.

Vote 34 approved.

On vote 35: corrections, British Columbia Parole Board, $92,756.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If I may be permitted a couple of words, I just want to thank all those people who work on the provincial parole board with very little compensation and many, many hours of dedication. Included in them is Mrs. Norris, the wife of Chief Justice Norris. We are very thankful that people like that continue to serve the province.

Vote 35 approved.

On vote 36: British Columbia Energy Commission, $918,020.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On vote 36, I just couldn't let that vote go by without saying a few words, Mr. Chairman.

It's a new vote, one in which there is an allocation of $918,000. It is an allocation that is for the function of the British Columbia Energy Commission. We've seen the action they have taken since they have become an organization of this province.

The first action we saw them take was to allow the increase of natural gas rates in the Interior of British Columbia by 30 per cent. We have seen the other action being taken on the lower mainland. Yet just a year ago — or less than that, six months ago — the Attorney-General gave us assurances that we're going to increase the export price of natural gas but we will protect the consumers of British Columbia.

We see the little people, by this vote and by the actions of the government, being abused by gas rate increases. Yet the Attorney-General convinced us just a few months ago that he would protect the existing rates of natural gas to the consumers of British Columbia.

Not too many days ago, in fact, B.C. Hydro increased the price of natural gas by approximately 17 per cent to the consumers in the lower mainland. They increased the price of natural gas to industry in British Columbia by 80 per cent. We hear further talk of increases, further abuses against the consumers of British Columbia when the Premier, himself, says that

[ Page 1279 ]

come next October we will again be increasing the price of natural gas from 61 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, export gas, to anywhere between $1.10 to $1.35, depending as to where he is speaking.

If he's in Ottawa, he talks about $1.35. If he's here, he talks about $1.10. It's quite obvious that the people of British Columbia again, just 11 months later, will face an increase in the cost of natural gas.

I'm wondering if the Attorney-General can tell us this time around whether the Energy Commission will increase the cost of natural gas to consumers and by how much. This time will the consumers pay 80 per cent more? Or will it be industry again?

You have a Minister here who is supposed to be promoting industrial development. Are you going to charge industry 11 months later another 80 per cent increase in the cost of natural gas? I want to know what steps you are taking to protect the consumers of British Columbia, to protect job-creating industry as well in British Columbia. I want to know what steps you are taking to ensure that there's fairness throughout British Columbia in the cost of natural gas.

Why should there be an increase of 30 per cent in the Interior and only 17 per cent on the lower mainland? There should be some fairness in the cost of natural gas in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, because we discussed this before, we are under the 105 per cent formula of the federal government. We hope that will be changed so that we can get a proper return on our export gas without having to adjust local rates. I would point out that we do believe industry should bear the burden very substantially of any increase in the cost of natural gas in British Columbia. That was inevitable because of that 105 per cent formula.

Even now, with the increase, natural gas is a bargain basement proposition for all industry compared to all other fuels they might use, such as bunker. It is still a very cheap fuel in British Columbia for consumers when it is compared with home-heating oil, and for industry when it is compared with the kind of fuels they have to buy.

There have been increases in the Interior. Columbia Gas, which is in my friend's riding.... I think you are served by Columbia Gas, a private company. Their price is going up on July 1 by 30 per cent. Did you know that? Well, it is. I don't think you can complain too much. When you look at the increases in other fuel, you will find that natural gas will still be a bargain, even with that increase.

MR. CHABOT: Is there going to be an increase in the charge for natural gas to the consumers, be they in the Interior or be they on the lower mainland, later this year?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not as far as I know.

MR. CHABOT: Not as far as you know? The Premier has stated that there is going to be an increase in the export price of natural gas.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Nothing is contemplated in that way.

MR. CHABOT: Nothing contemplated in that way?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. I would....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Export, possibly.

MR. CHABOT: Aren't they both tied together — the export and the domestic price?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Time what?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is a time gap.

MR. CHABOT: Well, there is a time gap, sure. You announced that you charged the B.C. Hydro $3 million a month more on November 1, and you passed it on to the consumers in January. Is that the time gap you are talking about?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member. We will not pass those full increases on to the local consumer, but the Americans must pay more for their natural gas.

MR. CHABOT: There is no suggestion there, Mr. Chairman, that there won't be an increase to the consumers in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not this year.

MR. CHABOT: Not this year? Shortly? — in the year 1975? Early in 1975?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Perhaps, but not this year. That is the answer to that question.

MR. CHABOT: I suggest to you that if you are going to increase the cost to B.C. Hydro, it's only a matter of time until the cost is passed on to the consumers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not this year.

MR. CHABOT: But early next year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Maybe.

[ Page 1280 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we've had the government embark upon quite an ambitious programme of rent control recently. The legislation is before this House. I would like to know whether we are going to have the same think type of restrictions upon B.C. Hydro and whether, in addition, these will be made retroactive.

There have been substantial increases and I would like to know whether or not, under the whole question of energy, the people of British Columbia, when they're dealing with their own Crown corporation — which we know to be making howling profits in gas — can at least have the assurance that the 8 per cent figure....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member knows that he's out of order. Hydro is not under my vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, all right, I'll put it in another.... It's the Energy Commission which determines rates, I understand. This is the difficulty we face. I could wait until the other Minister's estimates are up and discuss Hydro. I could ask the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) perhaps to comment upon it.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I would like to propose, then, that when we're in an area where the commission has the opportunity of influencing B.C. Hydro, if it does, we're in a situation where it might well be advisable for the commission itself to put some sort of limitation on or give some sort of indication of what is happening.

I notice, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a particularly good breakdown, once again, of what the Energy Commission actually does. I was hoping there would be some area in here....

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps you could pray for a little order...? Thank you. (Laughter.)

I was hoping it had some indication of the number of people who are in the planning field. This "other employees — directors, engineers, financial officers, clerks, stenographers, et cetera, 35..." doesn't give us the type of breakdown I was hoping for. I wonder whether the Minister at this stage, because this is a new vote, would like to give this type of breakdown so that we can vote on vote 36 with the same certainty, for example, as we voted on vote 12. In vote 12 we had a complete breakdown of the number of people employed in each area and under the various headings.

I wonder whether the Hon. Attorney-General would like to give us that.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important vote and quite a few Members are absent. I'd like to move that we report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 24

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the House, please advise the Speaker that a division took place and ask that it be recorded.

On vote 36.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it is an important vote, and I would have preferred that the Hon. Premier would have allowed the vote to stand over until the next sitting of the House. But since he chooses not to do that, we'll debate it this afternoon.

You know, this whole matter of energy in the Province of British Columbia is something that has occupied a great deal of time and a lot of debate, and there have been many points of view expressed by many people from all walks of life. I think the thing that we should be thankful for in British Columbia is the fact that the critical energy shortage that has found its way into many parts of the North American continent has not really hit us in the same respect.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It would have; if these people had....

MR. SMITH: No, that is not correct, Mr. Minister.

It's not the formation of an energy commission and the adoption of the Energy Act in the Province of British Columbia that was helpful in this particular situation. That is your opinion, but that is really not the case.

The fact of the matter is that in terms of energy

[ Page 1281 ]

for the use of British Columbians, the two-river policy and the fact that there was a favourable climate in the Province of British Columbia for exploration in the natural gas-producing areas of the province put us in a most favourable position with respect to hydrocarbon and hydro-electric energy sources in this province.

We only have to look back a few years to realize the great obstruction that took place with respect to the idea of developing both the Columbia and the Peace River at one and the same time. There was big obstruction to that idea.

Fortunately the government of the day went ahead on that particular basis, irrespective of what might have come up in the way of criticism. And fortunately for the people in the Province of British Columbia, we do have a surplus of energy.

I'd like to comment about the natural gas industry for a few moments because I believe it's an important one in the province. I agree that when it comes to the price of natural gas, particularly on the export market, we had to find a way of increasing that price in order to return more dollars to those of us in the Province of British Columbia who are actually the collective owners of that resource.

I've suggested before in this House, and I'll suggest again, that it was not necessary to put in an Energy Act or form an energy commission to negotiate a better and a higher price on the export market. It was necessary to go and see the National Energy Board and ask them to open up the terms of the export contract.

The one thing that we should have done that is still hanging over our head is that we should have asked the National Energy Board to remove that clause which required the domestic price of natural gas to be tied to the export price within 5 per cent of it, because as long as we have that clause in the contract, the consumers in the Province of British Columbia will be penalized by whatever agreement or whatever rate you sell the export gas at. If you negotiate an increase of another 10 cents or 50 cents per thousand cubic feet, all you're going to do is penalize the domestic and commercial users in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We would have lost $50 million if we hadn't acted. They still haven't changed things for other provinces.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Attorney-General, if it is true that the increased export price will realize to the Province of British Columbia an extra $50 million in revenue, then you have a responsibility to see that that revenue is used to reduce the price that we pay for natural gas in British Columbia. Instead of that, what has happened? We're all faced with a rate increase for the use of that particular product in this province. Yet we have an energy surplus in the natural gas fields in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That money belongs to all the people, not just one community.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you going to put it on the stock market?

MR. SMITH: It could have been used, or a part of it could have been used, to offset the price that everyone has to pay for natural gas in the Province of British Columbia, the same as you can equalize rates for the consumption for electricity throughout the province by using a postage stamp rate. That follows the theory that everyone in British Columbia will pay the same rate irrespective of location and you and I both know that in certain instances that is a subsidy in one area and a little higher charge in another, but it equalizes throughout the province. It would have been entirely possible for the government to use this windfall profit to at least keep the rate of natural gas to the consumers in this province at the rate that they paid three, four, five and six months ago. It was entirely possible to do that, but you chose not to.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It would be very unfair to the rest of the people.

MR. SMITH: Let's take a look at the supply of natural gas. One of the detrimental factors with respect to exploration in the province of British Columbia was the wellhead price for gas. I think we both recognize that. To the credit of the provincial government, they were able to negotiate an increase in the wellhead price of natural gas as well as an increase in the export price of natural gas. That, I hope, will result in increased exploration for natural gas in the province.

But there is one thing I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Attorney-General at this time and that is that it doesn't matter how fortunate we are in finding new sources of supply. At the time when the demand is greatest for natural gas, we will not be able to deliver it to the areas where it will be consumed with the existing pipeline facilities and maintain our export market at the level that it is presently at.

It's an impossibility to put more than so many million cubic feet of gas through the big-inch line in any 24-hour period. As you know, it goes in cycles, and at certain times of the year, as in the winter, the demand is much higher than at other times of the year. If the pipeline is not sufficiently large in size to process and push through the natural gas that's required both for the domestic and the export market, no matter how much gas we have in the producing fields or how much we can draw, it's a

[ Page 1282 ]

physical impossibility to get it to the market at the time that it's required.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So they loop it.

MR. SMITH: Yes, they'd loop the line and this is what they're doing now. All that does is increase the capacity of the pipeline by about 25 per cent. You can get 25 per cent more gas through and that is a temporary measure.

Let's assume that the demand for natural gas increases both at the export level and at the domestic level. In the Province of British Columbia. Sooner or later we will be faced with a situation where we can't physically put the required amount of natural gas through the pipelines down to the areas where it's consumed, the instant that it's required.

I think one of the solutions will be to investigate the process of liquefaction of natural gas. I think the Attorney-General should probably, have the Research Council of British Columbia investigate very thoroughly this whole area, because there was reason to believe that we would develop a strong export market for liquefied natural gas in the Japanese market. If it's profitable, then it makes good economic sense to liquefy natural gas and export it to Japan.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Or to Vancouver Island.

MR. SMITH: Yes, maybe the same process could be used for Vancouver Island or for storing natural gas to be used when we have big demand in the Province of British Columbia. I'm not suggesting that that is a solution, but I think it should certainly be investigated very closely, because that at least would give you a back-up supply that could be used in two conditions, either in an emergency situation where we had a break — and that could happen in the main pipeline to the coast — or where we had a big demand that we could not physically meet because of the fact that you cannot force the amount of natural gas through the compressors and the pipeline that was required for that particular time. So I believe that we should investigate very closely this processing of natural gas in a liquefied form. I think it could be the answer to some of our problems.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General what the position is with respect to the building of a pipeline to Vancouver Island. Is that being discounted altogether? If it is, are you then going to proceed in this area of supplying Vancouver Wand natural gas through the liquefied natural gas process? I think that one way or the other Vancouver Island is entitled to be serviced by natural gas in the same manner as customers in the rest of the Province of British Columbia.

I would hope that the Attorney-General, when he rises on his feet in this final vote on his estimates, would have something to say concerning that particular idea that I've thrown out to him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In the first part of the Hon. Member's speech, we have disagreements that we know about. We think that if this commission hadn't acted quickly during the winter shortage, we would have been shorted as well as the Americans and they saved us. We think they've done a very good job in bringing in additional revenue for the whole of the people of British Columbia. But we have our differences on that and it's a little late in the afternoon to go into them.

In terms of the other suggestions the Hon. Member made, I think they're very valuable. I would think the liquefying process could well be looked at by B.C. Research Council, because while it's done, and it's a fairly well-known industrial process, to do it efficiently in B.C. with our gas deserves looking at. In terms of Vancouver Island it's basically a Hydro thing and I don't think they've given up on the feasibility of a pipeline but my guess and estimate is that it would be liquefied gas that would come to Vancouver Island. I agree with the Hon. Member that it's a market that certainly deserves to be served.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to prolong the debate, but I just want to make one more suggestion. The Attorney-General knows that there is a limit to the amount of production that you can reliably get from any given well without running into a salt water problem. As you know, at Pointed Mountain this happened. The draw down was so heavy on those wells, and it was a geological problem, but they did run into a problem with the wells producing salt water. That's disaster in the petroleum business, particularly in the natural gas business. This is why I say that the manufacture and storage of liquefied natural gas should be looked at very closely. You can draw down on those wells at a given rate for probably 20 years without hurting them, but if you get into a position where, because of shortage of supply for even a 48-hour period, you could completely destroy the usability of that well forever more. That's the only point I have to make.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one question, Mr. Attorney-General. I've spoken of this before in the House, and last year I think you said you'd take it under advisement. This is in regard to the excess gas or the sour gas that's burned off at the refineries and, I think, at the wellhead. I asked about the feasibility of this being harnessed and used for hothouse production of tomatoes, various vegetables and possibly flowers. I understood from your statement last year that this was going to be looked into, or

[ Page 1283 ]

followed up, under your administration. I wonder if it has been done.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, waste utilization is being studied by the board, but I don't have the answer right now. If the Hon. Member will remind me of the question, I'll try and get a specific answer to it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, under this vote I would like to ask the Minister about the debate that has taken place in the province with respect to nuclear energy. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would understand this would come under this particular vote, and not that of B.C. Hydro because we're dealing, essentially, with the question of policy. Indeed, it's a question of policy in which the Premier's word is the one that has apparently had to sway.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it just happens that the Energy Commission are not doing any work in terms of nuclear research or feasibility. That's the answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's the point I would like to get to. Is B.C. Hydro doing any? Perhaps it would be better under B.C. Hydro. I don't know whether they are. Are they?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think Hydro's supposed to be.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This is the point I made earlier. The breakdown we get for the Energy Commission is inadequate to give us information on what they do. I personally believe that a great deal of research at a provincial level should be done on nuclear power — the possibilities of the CANDU system in British Columbia, the possibility of having nuclear power instead of these proposals which keep coming up about further damming of salmon rivers. If the Minister who is responsible for the Energy Commission is saying that that body is not doing any research, I wonder why this is. Is it because it's been pre-empted by some other agency of the government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Because it's being done by Hydro I would think any research in that way....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: All research, then, with respect to nuclear power is not done by the Energy Board, it's done entirely by Hydro. So, we have a situation then, that the Energy Board itself carries on no research of any sort in energy sources of this nature. They're doing none of the technical....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As to research, they survey the resources of the province in economic, social and market terms. But in terms of feasibility of projects, no, they don't. They would refer it to Hydro, the B.C. Research Council, or something of that kind.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I ask the Minister: do they let contracts to the B.C. Research Council or is that, again, done by Hydro?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They haven't yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But the question I'm after is this: we can't tell from the estimates what they do, and I'd like to know whether or not they or B.C. Hydro would be the agency that would let research contracts.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think it would be Hydro. But there is no provision in these estimates that the Energy Commission could contract for that research, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is no provision that they would do any of this ?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay. In other words, they're what I would call a paper agency rather than an active agency in the technical field.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will leave my remarks, then, with respect to nuclear power to the estimates on B.C. Hydro.

Vote 36 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again. It further reports that there were divisions in the committee and asks leave to have these recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:20 p.m.