CONTENTS

Coal Mines Regulations Amendment Act (Bill 94). Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 3165

Mines Regulations Amendment Act (Bill 125). Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 3165

Mining Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 122). Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 3165

British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 27). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3165

Point of order Possibility of remarks being sub judice. Mr. Gardom — 3170

British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 27). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3172

Point of order Application of subjudice rule. Mr. Speaker — 3176

Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 85). Third reading — 3178

Agricultural Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 126). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3179

Liquor Distribution Act (Bill 93). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3181

Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 127). Hon. R.A. Williams. Introduction and first reading — 3191

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, in the precincts sometime, maybe now or a little later on this morning, there are going to be 55 elementary school children from the Lejac Indian School in Fraser Lake. These children have come 600 miles for their first visit to the Legislature and to Victoria and I would ask all the Members of the House to welcome these to welcome these children.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, from much closer at hand but nonetheless welcome are 30 students today coming in, I believe, at 11 o'clock to view our proceedings from Claremont Senior Secondary School in School District 63.

Introduction of bills.

COAL MINES REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nimsick, Bill 94, Coal Mines Regulations Amendment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINES REGULATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nimsick, Bill 125, Mines Regulations Amendment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mining Tax Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 122 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 27.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY
CONSTRUCTION LOAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the borrowing authorization of the B.C. Railway from $440 million to $650 million.

During my introductory comments on this bill I will be dealing with material from the 1974 annual report of the B.C. Railway. At the conclusion I will file this report...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...with the House as is customary and seek leave to adjourn the debate to allow the opposition to study the report and other material over the weekend.

When I was in Ottawa recently I understood that some Members of the opposition were getting very excited about the financial situation of the B.C. Railway. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I think the House should be reminded what some of these Members said relating to the B.C. Railway as reported in Hansard. The statements were made during the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) in Hansard April 9 and 10, 1975, stated:

It's in a complete state of turmoil. Things are serious on that line right today. Somebody should be looking into them. We are fed up to the teeth in the central interior with the operation of this railroad. Something has to be smartened up and fast or there's going to be real trouble. I can assure you all that the citizens of this province will want lots of answers about the operation of this railroad when we are debating that bill.

I'm urging them to come forward with the scandal on the BCR. Everybody in the interior of this province knows what happened to the BCR from 1952 till 1973. I want to repeat that I know all about the history of the railroad and so do the people in the interior of this province.

You know, as always, Mr. Speaker, this Member confuses me. He tells us the railway is in chaos. He asks that I tell them why. At the same time he finished up saying that he knows all about what has happened to the railroad and so does everyone else in the province.

Well, it may be quite true that he knows all about what has happened to the railroad under the previous administration, but there is no way that he or the

[ Page 3166 ]

former president of the railroad ever told the people of the province which was really happening.

The Liberal Members are obviously concerned about the B.C. Railway. Their former spokesman, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) as quoted in Hansard on April 10, 1975.

There are very serious financial difficulties on the horizon. There are very serious financial difficulties that have already been experienced, grave financial difficulties.

Dealing with the expansion programme, how much more is this going to cost than it was estimated to cost?

This could well involve millions and millions and millions of dollars.

There are very, very serious problems that are being presented. The general public has not been given any specifics. They have not been given any dollar figures, but one thing has become extremely evident. The B.C. Rail is in a financial mess and the public wants to know to what extent it is in a financial mess, and who caused the financial mess. I pose those questions to the Hon. Minister.

Yes, there are serious problems. There is a financial mess, and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is right when he indicates that the public is entitled to know the details of this mess and who caused this mess.

Today is another day of reckoning for the people of British Columbia and the Members of the official opposition. The facts I will reveal today will surely lay at rest forever the myth of financial wizardry attributed to the former government.

In its place will be revealed the incompetence and political chicanery which have cost and will continue to cost the people of British Columbia hundreds of millions of dollars.

Not long after assuming office I became concerned about areas relating to finance, administration and the construction programme within the B.C. Railway. As a result, I have ordered certain investigations and received several reports relating to these investigations.

In April, 1973, I tabled in this House a report I had received concerning the effectiveness of the B.C. Railway financial systems which had been prepared by the comptroller-general, Mr. M.J. Minty. Mr. Minty noted among other things that there appeared to be little or no internal or external audit check on millions of dollars spent annually on construction of the B.C. Railway engineering division.

He recommended: "...the external auditors not be unduly restricted in setting the terms of their audit engagements, as appeared to be the case in the past." I will have more to say on this later.

Mr. Minty also recommended that an independent engineering consultant be hired to review the methods of the engineering division. In a letter attached to his report he commented as follows on the matter of awarding contracts for the rail extension:

"With respect to the awarding of contracts for all rail line extensions I confirm that the company's officials have seen fit to limit spending on preliminary engineering studies, a practice which has contributed directly to overruns in the order of $17 million on contracts completed to date." That was in April, 1973.

Mr. Minty's words in connection with insufficiency of preliminary engineering studies are repeated throughout the tragic story that is now revealed in the construction of the Fort Nelson extension and the Dease Lake extension. We will see that this policy of the previous government led to low-cost estimates for political consumption, for public consumption and political gain. Indeed while we remained shocked at the results each day, we had become more familiar with the policy.

As with the Columbia River, the people of British Columbia are going to learn the true facts of the costs of the recent construction on the British Columbia railway — costs which had to be borne for many years by the public of British Columbia.

At the fall session of 1973 I tabled in this House two more reports: one on financial reporting and control practices, authored by Price Waterhouse & Co.; and one on engineering and contract methods by Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Ltd. Step by step every point raised by Mr. Minty, and further reports, will be documented here by outside consultants.

Mr. Speaker, it has taken us this long to get to the very heart of this matter by going directly to outside consultants and their reports. The Price Waterhouse report revealed that this great jewel in the previous administration's crown had in fact "cumbersome," "inefficient," "inadequate" financial accounting and control practices. In one instance they noted that the cost of 1,000 freight cars bought in 1971 for $16.3 million was written off as a charge to equipment rental over 15 years. They said: "In our view, this is not in keeping with generally accepted accounting practices."

It was, of course, in keeping with the previous government's accounting practices. As far as capital expenditures were concerned, they found financial control and reporting inadequate. There was no clear picture of expenditures planned and approved by the board of directors, and the extent of funds authorized but not spent in the previous years was not known.

In short, the typical picture of mismanagement, inefficiency and incompetence, which we are realizing more and more day by day, was the trademark of the previous administration.

[ Page 3167 ]

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has, on the whole, said very little about the B.C. Railway. When he does talk about it, he seems obsessed with three things: the alleged $992,000 profit the railway reported in the last year of Social Credit, 1972; the resignation of the railway's auditors, Buttar & Chiene; and alleged political patronage in senior staff positions.

Buttar & Chiene had been the auditors all through the Socred years. On November 18, 1974, Hansard reports the opposition leader stating: "...they resigned because they weren't prepared to change the auditing procedures because of the mounting losses that the railway wished to hide this year."

I want to re-read the quote of the Official Leader of the Opposition: "...they" — Buttar & Chiene, according to him — "resigned because they weren't prepared to change the auditing procedures because of the mounting losses that the railway wished to hide this year."

That is a very serious charge, Mr. Speaker, not substantiated by facts. I think that the public deserves to know the facts. I think that the public deserves to know the facts about these questions. I intend to give them the facts — not gossip, the facts.

First, let's see what really happened to Buttar & Chiene. Did they resign because they were asked by this government to change auditing procedures, as the opposition leader has charged? What connection, if any, was there between the resignation and the annual report of 1972 showing the $992,000 profit which the opposition leader kept boasting about?

On September 11, 1974, Buttar & Chiene resigned as B.C. Railway auditors. "For personal reasons," was their statement.

On October 30, 1974, the professional conduct committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia laid a complaint against Douglas McKenzie Walker, the sole principal of Buttar & Chiene, and the complaint related to the B.C. Railway auditing. On November 27, the institute's professional conduct inquiry board panel held a hearing on the complaint. After hearing the evidence, the findings were as follows:

"...and the panel having found unanimously that the said member, Douglas McKenzie Walker, violated rule 21 of the code of ethics and rules of professional conduct, as alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the statement of complaint, by reporting on and associating himself for and on behalf of the firm of Buttar &Chiene with the financial statements and auditor's report thereon for the British Columbia Railway Co. for the year ended December 31, 1972, when he had failed to obtain sufficient information to warrant the expression of the unqualified opinion expressed thereon and therein, and that the said member has been incompetent in professional matters within the meaning of bylaw 6783, in force at all material times, and also of bylaw 6883 in force at the present time, as alleged in paragraph 3 of the statement of complaint."

On December 20, 1974, the inquiry panel ordered, by a vote of 4 to 1, that Mr. Walker be suspended from the accounting institute until December 17, 1975, and recommend to Mr. Walker that he update his auditing knowledge by undertaking a course in advanced auditing.

I will table with this House, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the circular from the accountants' institute, dated February 18, 1975, setting out the above.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that under the previous administration the B.C. Railway never ever made one cent of profit, even if the annual report figures submitted each year by Buttar & Chiene were to be accepted as correct.

The record also shows in section 8 of the report of the comptroller-general, Mr. Minty, that Einar Gunderson, former railway director, an admitted Social Credit fund raiser, "restricted" the auditors in their work.

"According to the comptroller, E.M. Gunderson" — this is in the Minty report — "restricted the extent to which the external auditors can go into their auditing, with a consequent limitation of fees charged." Finally, with the findings of the chartered accountants institute, all of the annual financial reports which have been tabled in this House under the previous administration, relating to the B.C. Railway, were at least called into doubt.

Following on the resignation of Buttar & Chiene, new auditors were appointed: Messrs. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., chartered accountants, of Vancouver. This firm is one of the partnerships forming the international family of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. The Canadian partnership is owned by the Canadian partners. They have an extensive background involving a number of major audit clients in the transportation and transportation-related fields, including Canadian National Railways. They are a large, diversified firm of chartered accountants with a total staff of approximately 1,200, including 130 partners operating from 21 offices in Canada. The Vancouver office has been established for over 60 years and has a staff of 155, including 19 partners. The Vancouver audit and accounting group totals 122, including 14 partners, and of this group about 60 are chartered accountants.

Peat, Marwick and Mitchell commenced to review the previous annual reports, in light of the comments made by the comptroller-general and the action taken by the chartered accountants association in the case of Buttar & Chiene, and to work on the present annual report which I will be tabling today. It was because of the large amount of work involved

[ Page 3168 ]

following the resignation of the previous auditors that the present annual report had to be delayed until now. The certificate of the auditors which appears in the 1974 report, which I will be tabling, related to the year 1974, and retroactively to a restatement of previously reported amounts in annual reports from January 1, 1957. The certificate reads as follows:

"To the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of the Province of British Columbia:

"We have examined the balance sheet of the British Columbia Railway Co. as of December 31, 1974, and the statement of income and deficit and changes in financial position for the year then ended. Our examination included a general review of the accounting procedures and such tests of accounting records and other supporting evidence as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

"As described in note 2 of the notes to the financial statements, a review of the past accounting policies of the company has been carried out. It was concluded that the financial statements as of December 1, 1973, on an overall basis did not present fairly the cumulative operating results of the railway to that date, and that certain of the past policies did not conform to the accounting regulations of the Canadian Transport Commission.

"In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly the financial position of the company at December 31, 1974, and the results of its operations and the changes in its financial position for the year then ended in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, including certain changes in accounting policies which were instituted in 1974 as a result of the conclusions, with which we agree, described in the preceding paragraph and applied retroactively to 1973 and prior periods, and which, after giving such retroactive effect, have been applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year."

Therefore the figures that we will be dealing with have been certified by a firm of chartered accountants with an international reputation as being a fair statement of the railway's financial position in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and no restrictions were placed on the auditors, as had happened in previous years.

Because of events that I've already outlined, it was considered necessary to review the accounting methods of the past, and the following extract is from this year's annual report, explaining this situation fully:

"Change in Auditing Policies.

"During the year, management undertook a comprehensive review of accounting principles and policies being followed by the major railways in Canada, including meetings and discussions with representatives from the Canadian Transport Commission in Ottawa and the Department of Transport and Communications in Victoria.

"The Canadian Transport Commission describes accounting regulations for those railways which are subject to their jurisdiction. The commission would usually review and approve accounting policies and depreciation rates submitted by such railways. Such approval is not available to the British Columbia Railway because the company is not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal commission.

"Management considers that the accounting regulations prescribed by the Canadian Transport Commission are the most appropriate basis for accounting for railroads in Canada.

"The railway has adopted new accounting policies and appreciation rates which are summarized in note 1 to the financial statement of this report. We believe that these policies and rates are such that they would be approved by the commission if submitted by a regular carrier. "

Annual reports, submitted to this House and signed, stated that they were conforming to the Canadian Transport Commission. That was not true, Mr. Speaker.

"Restatement of prior years: Retroactive effect was given to the 1974 accounting policies and rates from January 1, 1957. The date is accepted as that when the Squamish to Prince George section of the railway became operational. The decision to reflect these changes retroactively was considered necessary because of:

"(1) the financial statements of December 31, 1973, were not prepared in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles, and accumulating operating results of the railway to that date were not fairly presented;

"(2) because certain past policies did not conform with the accounting regulations.

"(3) to establish a basis for the preparation and comparison of 1974 and future statements, and because of the significant effect of such changes on previous reported amounts.

"The adjustments arising from such retroactive restatement give rise to an increase of $62 million in the reported deficit of the railway, as of December 31, 1973: of which $9.7 million applies to the year 1973 and $52 million to 1972 and previous years.

"Details of these adjustments appear on note 2 in the financial statement. The financial

[ Page 3169 ]

statements referred to are, of course, certified by the auditors."

That's how the situation sounds in the language of the business report. Let me try to translate it into everyday language that we all understand.

This annual report and the auditors' report is saying that for many years now the annual financial reports of the B.C. Railway have not been done according to the Canadian Transport Commission regulations, although the past annual reports said that they were. They have not been done to generally accepted accounting principles, and they have not presented the fair and true picture of the railway's financial position.

The end result of all of this, Mr. Speaker, was to bury in the books a loss of $52.7 million between 1957 and 1972. And for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), I would note that in the year 1972 there was a loss of $8,100,000, not a profit of $993,000 which he'd like the public to believe.

Mr. Speaker, one more sordid episode in the history of the party that is now the official opposition. I wonder if the opposition leader will run out to hire a hall and tell this story to the public.

As the official opposition, how much debate were we allowed on the $52 million deficit of the B.C. Railway between 1957 and 1972? None at all, because we were never given the true figures to debate. All this House received at that time were "restricted" figures determined by the former president of the railway, and Einar Gunderson.

I have given my pledge that as long as we are the government there will be no more "restricted" auditing. Naturally, when we became government we accepted the 1973 annual report figures, as presented to us by the auditor, on their face value. As a result, the loss for that year was reported at $3,302,000. Because of the restatement of finances from 1957 on, the true figure for 1973, as it appears in the present annual report, is $13 million and the figure for 1974 is $32 million.

Just to make sure everyone fully understands the former accounting practices of the railway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to one more fact. Between 1966 and 1972, bills were passed by this Legislature subsidizing the B.C. Railway in the total amount of $120 million from consolidated revenue. This was called "purchasing shares." It was nothing more than direct subsidy of a Crown corporation from general revenue, and these bills were sponsored by the former Premier of this province.

If it is necessary to subsidize the railway, let the people have the truth: they are grants from general revenue, not share purchases. There is only one shareholder: the government. And each time it puffed up the shares, it was a device to pay money out of consolidated revenue to the railroad.

The record of the party of the Leader of the Opposition is clear and on record: subsidies of $120 million, and a net loss from 1957 to 1972 of $57 million — a loss that was carefully hidden from the public by the former administration; nor did public accounts have the opportunity to question any of these matters. That's only part of the story; there's more to come relating to hidden costs of construction.

I hope, but it's a forlorn hope, that the Leader of the Opposition will stand up and apologize to this House for the statements he made, as recorded in Hansard, relating to the resignation of the auditors — a false charge that this government was ordering the auditors to do something wrong.

It is obvious that if any of the instructions were issued to the auditors to hide losses, as the opposition leader put it, those restrictions were ordered by the former government. They succeeded in hiding losses of $52.7 million. Today the public has the facts certified by a firm of auditors with a world-wide reputation.

Now the question of B.C. Rail senior staff and middle management staff. On December 11, 1974, the opposition leader was demanding a royal commission to investigate political changes involving these employees, as he charged. He was suggesting patronage. On April 12 this year, according to The Vancouver Sun, he was still stating that we had made significant changes in this staff since we took office.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, has been shown time after time to be wrong in his statements made emotionally and without adequate research.

Following his speech on April 12, I asked the B.C. Railway to prepare a list of their senior officers and administrative personnel, including the dates of their appointments. I will table this document in this House. The list is dated April 23, 1975, and shows that the vice-president, the general manager of rail division and the chief engineer were all appointed before we became government. The only senior official appointed by this government was Mr. G. Marshall, a financial officer, effective September 1, 1974.

The senior administration personnel on the list totals 47 persons; 39 of them were appointed prior to this government taking office. They have had varying lengths of service, going back in one instance to as far as 1938. Of the eight we have appointed, four are in the new railcar manufacturing plant division. One is the corporate solicitor whom we appointed following recommendation No. 7 in the Minty report, and the other three are a soil engineer, a superintendent of track construction and the engineer of building construction.

I know it's too much to ask for an apology, but

[ Page 3170 ]

the Leader of the Opposition at least owes these people a correction of his statement and regrets that he acted so foolishly.

While on the subject of staff, I would like to give my public appreciation of the work done by Mr. MacNorris, the vice-president of the railway, and to all the staff who have done such a fantastic job under the most difficult circumstances. They have served the public well, and criticism of their work by the opposition is completely unwarranted.

Now the northern extension. Having laid one myth to rest, I would like to continue discussing the Swan Wooster report which dealt with engineering and was tabled in this House at the fall session, 1973. Swan Wooster, dealing with the Fort St. James–Dease Lake extension, noted only limited records were available. They were very critical of "very limited degree of pre-construction engineering performed" — a question raised in the spring of 1973 by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. They found that this limited pre-construction engineering directly contributed to "unrealistic" estimates of quantities and costs at the time contracts were awarded. And this, of course, again led directly to the overruns being experienced in the Dease Lake extension. On this extension they said there was a marked lack of pre-engineering.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm anxious to hear what the Hon. Premier has to say on this point, but I think it would be advisable if you could take for consideration the principle in which the rule of sub judice is going to be practised in this House, as to whether or not it's going to be consistently practised or otherwise. There is a lawsuit at the present time, I gather, before the Supreme Court of British Columbia concerning overruns between B.C. Rail and M.E.L. Paving. I am informed that this lawsuit concerns itself with estimating procedures, overruns and breach of contract.

The rule of sub judice as stated in May — and I'm paraphrasing — is that there should not be any debate if it appears to the Chair that there's any real or substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case. Conceivably, there would have to be before the House, before the Chair, information that the action was set for trial or awaiting adjudication. But I would draw this point to Your Honour's attention that heretofore the tests that I'm referring to have not been placed before this House, and sub judice rulings have been granted in this House vis-à-vis the egg board cases and Mr. Kovachich. It was raised by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), I quite recall, in the case of Bremer versus the Minister of Finance which was a libel action.

I requested myself from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) information concerning the Bremer contract and settlement documents between himself and the government of this province. The Minister of Education took the position that it was sub judice because there was a libel action going on between the Minister of Finance and Mr. Bremer so she was not permitted to present that material. That is, of course, fallacious reasoning, as I advocated at that point.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be advisable that you let the House have the benefit of your learning and knowledge as to on what basis this rule is now going to be interpreted and utilized in this Legislature. We have to have some kind of consistency.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from a Swan Wooster report that was tabled in this House. I have discussed the exact wording and material of this with the Attorney-General's department in concern over the sub judice rule. We are not reflecting other than on public knowledge that exists. I have to state facts in the statements in this House but I will not comment on the case, Mr. Member.

MR. GARDOM: If I might speak again on the point of order, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Premier and I agree with the approach that he is taking, but I would also demonstrate very, very clearly that we are having a double standard in this House. When the egg board cases were up and when the Bremer case was up, the government took an entirely different position. Their position then was completely wrong. Make no mistake of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that one must tread carefully on the whole question so as not to infringe on the sub judice rule. I point out that we are here discussing the general principles of the financial condition of the railway. That requires a rather large canvass for discussing if this House is to be informed on the question of what moneys are necessary to run a railway.

If you look at page 400 of the 16th edition of May, which I happen to have here at the moment, it states: "A matter, whilst under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise. This rule does not apply to bills." On page 457 it says: "Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate (except by means of a bill)." It then refers back to the quotation that I have already cited. This rule was observed by Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell both by the wording of the Speech from the Throne and by their procedure in the House regarding Mr. O'Connell's case and has been

[ Page 3171 ]

maintained by rulings from the Chair.

Regardless of the fact that this is a bill, I do urge that only those matters that are already public knowledge, without comment on the merits of any cases before the court or without indulging in any canvassing of the evidence that may be brought forward by any pleadings in that proceeding, would be the limit at the most, in my view.

MR. GARDOM: I would also mention to you, Mr. Speaker, that at page 328 of May it states that by a resolution of the House matters awaiting or under adjudication in a criminal court or a court martial and matters set down for trial or otherwise brought before a civil court may not be referred to in any debate or question period.

I'm not quarrelling with the interpretation that has been placed today. But I'll tell you one thing that I'm quarrelling with and that is that this is the first time the government has seen fit to permit something to go ahead. They refused it in Dunhill, they refused it in the egg marketing board and Kovachich, and they refused it with Mr. Bremer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, Swan Wooster, dealing with the Fort St. James–Dease Lake extension....

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't you want the facts?

MR. McGEER: Yes, we do.

MR. GARDOM: But we want a consistent rule, too.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm very keen to learn the facts about B.C. Railway, and was at the time the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) originally ran interference against questions that I tried to raise in the public accounts committee. I recall attempting to raise points with regard to the egg marketing board when the Natural Products....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate during the estimates is a quite different matter.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, excuse me. This was in regard to a bill — the Natural Products Marketing Act — that was brought before the House on second reading. When I quoted the exact same rules from May that you are quoting to me now, a completely opposite interpretation was placed on them by the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: It's very nice for you to say that but I think the Hon. Member is making a distinction that is not fair to the Chair in this question, in that in the case before the House at that time there was not any mention or relationship between a court case specifically and the bill that was before the House. It would only be if the bill in any way affected the court case that it would be proper to debate the court case at all. Here we are discussing the financial state of a railway where there is a requirement for more moneys. The House must know whether these moneys are necessary, what the financial state of the railway is and what the causes of any losses or problems that the railway has are.

I tried to suggest to the Member that since that deals with the financial state of the railway, the financial state of the railway must be paid before this House. That is the one exception that is found in May.

The Hon. Member, in effect, is not really looking at the ruling fairly if he suggests that because he was stopped by a collateral matter that was not part of the bill from debating a court case in that bill, then here, where the very heart of the issue is the financial state of the railway, if the Member who is speaking should be stopped, then he is really mistaking the interpretation of both those situations.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand, then, from your ruling today, that when the time comes for debate on second reading of this particular bill, matters such as the pleadings in the court case, which obviously affect the financial condition of the railway and which are matters of public knowledge, will also be quotable in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: No, no they will not. So far as I am concerned, they will not. If the House disagrees with me, they can; but I don't believe you should canvass a court case, the issues in the court case or the evidence in the court case. But you are entitled to discuss the financial state of the railway so far as the public facts are ascertained and not the subject of court determination.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the court case itself will affect the financial condition of the railway very considerably.

MR. SPEAKER: I would have to look more closely at the pleadings to determine that. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) did not indicate that. Now he seems more aware of the court case than I am.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're missing the point. Mr. Speaker...

[ Page 3172 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at all.

MR. McGEER: Now don't you start on that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, don't you start it either. Are you going to counterthreat and threat? Let's get on with the business.

MR. GARDOM: Now look, Mr. Premier, let's have this thoroughly understood. The position that I have made today, which is a correct one...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: ...is that this does not violate the rule, and it didn't violate the rule in those other three situations either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are incorrect. Mr. Speaker, Swan Wooster dealing with the Fort St. James–Dease Lake extension, noted only limited records were available. They were critical of the "limited degree of pre-construction engineering performed." They found that this limited pre-construction engineering directly contributed to "unrealistic estimates" — estimates of quantities and costs at the time contracts were awarded. This, of course, led directly to overruns being experienced in the Dease Lake extension. On this extension, they said there was, "a marked lack of pre-engineering." Public information, Mr. Speaker.

The time has come to burst another bubble, time for the people of British Columbia to be made aware of the results of this incompetence in the previous administration as it relates to the B.C. Railway Dease Lake extension. Because of my concerns over this particular project, I ordered a study to be made, an assessment of the Dease Lake extension, and to recommend the course of action to the railroad. This study was prepared by Touche, Ross & Co. I will be tabling the report in the House today.

Touche, Ross found that the capital cost estimate of this project used by the previous administration was $69 million. They estimated it needed to be increased up to $102 million as of December, 1972. That's from June to December. They found that the two major traffic generators used to justify the original projections, the Stikine-Dease pulp mill and the Groundhog coal fields, were not likely to be developed. They concluded that the wood supply at either Dease Lake or Stikine Crossing would provide, one-quarter to one-third of the production required for an economically efficient and viable pulp mill." I repeat, Mr. Speaker: "one-quarter to one-third of the production required for an economically efficient and viable pulp mill."

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

HON. UR. BARRETT: In plain English, not enough wood.

The conclusions are obvious. Either the previous administration was so incompetent that they did not ascertain the simplest of facts from the forestry department...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Didn't even ask them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...or, alternatively, they chose to deliberately ignore or accept such facts. It is a multiple-choice question with both answers leading to incompetence.

Notwithstanding their reservations, Touche, Ross concluded that the Dease Lake extension still appeared to be financially feasible after taking into account a federal capital cost grant, which this government negotiated, and other assumptions. I want to publicly thank the federal government for assuming shared responsibility in this project with their eyes wide open. Had it not been for the federal government's commitment, this would have been even more of a major disaster.

Touche, Ross recommended that the construction continue, "at least as far as the vicinity of the junction of the Skeena and Sustat Rivers, to negotiate a firm commitment from the federal government for a grant, and, if it was received, to continue to Dease Lake." If an unsatisfactory result was obtained in negotiations for a grant with the federal government, the recommendation was to reassess the completion of the extension. This report was considered by the board of directors and it was decided to continue with the construction.

We have also obtained a report from P.S. Ross & Partners as to an alternative route to the west of the Dease Lake extension; but in their opinion, the Dease Lake extension was superior.

Following the Touche, Ross report, capital costs, with their resulting overruns, continued to mount. Because of this, I again ordered further evaluation by Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Swan Wooster was asked to advise whether a decision by the railway to proceed with the winter works programme on two particular contracts on the Dease Lake extension between miles 222 and 216 would produce certain savings in costs.

On January 21 this year, Swan Wooster reported as follows:

"Our analysis indicates that it will be feasible and preferable to carry out this operation in winter, that possible completion dates for the extension would be in the latter part of 1976 with winter grading, and mid 1978

[ Page 3173 ]

without, and that the present value of the winter work alternative is some $5 million to $20 million less than the summer work alternative."

It was therefore decided to proceed with the winter work.

Because this matter is so important, I am going to table two reports which were prepared by the B.C. Railway staff and delivered to me earlier this year.

The first report is dated February 27, 1975, and is a factual history of the Fort Nelson and Dease Lake extensions prepared by George T. Hanrahan, general counsel of the British Columbia Railway. I will take some time to highlight particular parts of Mr. Hanrahan's report.

He begins by saying that prior to the decision in August, 1968, to extend the railway from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, three reports were prepared, but nowhere in these reports was there any reference to capital cost projection. Nowhere. Mr. Hanrahan carefully outlines the history of the contracts that were let for clearing and grading, and the overrun on each contract. He reports that the total amount of these contracts was $16,400,000. The total cost of the extension to date is approximately $72 million, and it is expected that the capital expenditure during 1975 will be approximately $15 million. To this must be added an interest cost on capital employed.

As construction to Fort Nelson was supposedly completed by 1971, one obvious question arises. What are the expenditures in 1975; Let me quote Mr. Hanrahan's report as follows:

"Although construction was complete in 1971, numerous revisions since then were required to improve the rail grade. Furthermore, stabilization and reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension will take approximately four more years before the rail grade is of acceptable standard.

"At the date of this report, the Fort Nelson extension is still operating under the construction department and has not been turned over to the operating department. Since the extension has been in operation there have been 270 derailments of various magnitudes, declining from 143 in the year 1972 to 57 in the year ending 1974 because we went on with the job of reconstructing that whole extension."

Mr. Hanrahan continues his report by stating:

"The decision taken on December 11, 1969, to extend the line from Takla Lake to Dease Lake was preceded by a report prepared by the research and development department of the railway. The report assumed massive and rapid economic development in the region, but again, as with the Fort Nelson extension, nowhere was there to be found any reference to capital cost projections."

Again Mr. Hanrahan carefully outlines the various contracts that were awarded, the amounts of money involved and the enormous overruns experienced. It is a matter of public record that the railway is presently involved in litigation with one of the contractors, M.E.L. Paving Ltd. There are two suits in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, one by the railway claiming, among other things, damages for breach of contract, and the second by M.E.L. Paving Ltd. claiming against the railway for:

"rescission of an alleged contract for clearing, grading and installing culverts on the defendant company's railway from mile 296 to mile 335 in the Province of British Columbia; for damages for fraud, conspiracy with the defendant Broadbent, misrepresentation and negligent miss-statement, inducing the plaintiff to enter into an alleged contract; for return of holdback security deposit and other moneys paid to the court; compensation on a quantum merit for work performed at the request of the defendant company; interest on said holdback security deposit moneys to court; a mandatory order requiring the defendant company to forthwith remeasure quantities; an inquiry into the amount owing upon such remeasurement; and judgment for the amount found owing thereunder."

Mr. Joseph S. Broadbent, former vice-president of the railway, is also sued in the same action by M.E.L. Paving, and the alleged claim against him is for "damages for conspiracy with the defendant company to induce the plaintiff to enter into a form of contract...."

MR. McGEER: Point of order. Just for clarification, since we were ruled out once before....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not on the name of the suit.

MR. McGEER: Oh, yes, we were, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, you weren't.

MR. McGEER: I wonder if we're open to discuss this sort of thing since we were ruled out of order before. I'd like to discuss it, but I'm merely pointing out that the ruling of the Chair in an identical case was exactly the opposite....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not discussing it; I'm reading the case.

MR. McGEER: We were prevented from reading documents that were before the court by the

[ Page 3174 ]

Chairman of the committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense!

MR. McGEER: During a bill. The Premier should have been here. If he wasn't he could have had the loudspeaker on. I'm just pointing out that it's hypocritical, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think the Hon. Member realizes that to canvass the pleadings and to comment on the pleadings of a court case that is before the court, a statement of claim or the plaintiff's claim, which are outlined ... to canvass those matters and debate them would be improper.

MR. McGEER: No, no, Mr. Speaker, we were prevented from stating them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. "...for damages for conspiracy with the defendant company to induce the plaintiff to enter into a form of contract for the said work by deliberately and falsely reducing the defendant's company schedule on...."

It would not be proper for me to discuss in any way matters sub judice. I have a right and responsibility to read the charges.

I have a duty, however, to report that the allegations raised in the preceding statement of claim were not news to me when they were filed in court. As a meeting proceeded on the litigation, attended by the solicitor for M.E.L. Paving, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and myself, similar allegations were made. The Attorney-General, as a result of that meeting, retained and received the report from Mr. Robert Plummer, Q.C., a distinguished Vancouver lawyer.

I am advised that it would be improper for me to table that report which discusses and reaches conclusions relating to the matters involved in the litigation. I have reported that Mr. Broadbent is a party to the litigation, and he is separately represented by counsel.

On December 11, 1974, I met with Mr. Broadbent in the presence of the Deputy Attorney-General to discuss the payment of his legal fees in that action. There was no discussion of the matters at issue in the lawsuit. None. When the meeting was concluded, I sent a letter to Mr. Broadbent, as follows:

"I am writing to confirm my conversation with you this afternoon in connection with these proceedings.

"You have advised me that all of your actions and decisions taken in connection with M.E.L. Paving Ltd. were made upon the advice, consent and with the instructions of the board of directors of the British Columbia Railway Company. I have said to you that the government would not be in a position to indemnify you if that were not so. Upon your reaffirmation of the above facts, I have undertaken on behalf of the government to indemnify you for all loss, costs and reasonable expenses incurred by you as a result of these proceedings.

"Would you kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm our understanding at that time?"

Mr. Broadbent has subsequently acknowledged receipt and confirmed our arrangement through his lawyer: "We refer to your letter of December 11, 1974, directed to the attention of Mr. J.S. Broadbent" — the date is December 20, 1974.

"Mr. Broadbent has asked us to reply to his letter, and we wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter and confirm Mr. Broadbent's and your understanding at that time as set forth in your letter dated December 11, 1974.

"We assume that as solicitors for Mr. Broadbent, we will be given complete access to the documents of the British Columbia Railway Company relating to the above-captioned matter. We will co-ordinate this with the solicitors for the British Columbia Railway."

I will file both letters, with leave of the House.

Mr. Hanrahan's report discusses the litigation and other actions of the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory, commenced by the railroad against M.E.L. Paving Ltd.

He also reports on arrangements made with Keane Industries and K.R.M. Construction to continue the construction undertaken by those companies, notwithstanding the claim to recover compensation for damages suffered as a consequence of alleged incompetent design and miscalculation by the railway in defining the scope of the project which the companies tendered.

Mr. Hanrahan's report concludes by recording that the total cost of the extension is approximately $157 million and that it will be expected that capital expenditures during 1975 will be $50 million and, during 1976, $25 million. Again, to these figures, interest on capital must be added. This totals $232 million.

The annual report of 1974 carries updated figures on the Dease Lake extension, and indicates that the cost of the extension will amount to $227 million.

In the case of the Fort Nelson extension, updated figures in the annual report show the cost between $80 and $90 million.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the shocking facts are that the Dease Lake extension will cost $227 million instead of the $69 million figure given by the former

[ Page 3175 ]

administration. The Fort Nelson extension will cost $80 to $90 million instead of $42 million, the original estimate. In the case of Dease Lake, the figure is subject to possible increase, depending on the results of litigation.

From all of this, we have a railway to Fort Nelson that is so badly constructed as to have experienced 270 derailments from the time it commenced operation.

The second report I will table is by B.C. Railway former engineer, Mr. M.S. Wakeley, and is a history of the northern extensions insofar as the various construction contracts are concerned.

Without going into detail on the constant recording of overruns due to under-estimated quantities, the following paragraph from Mr. Wakeley's report puts the situation in a nutshell.

Mr. Wakeley's report was received on January 30, 1975. I'll file all of these documents with the House so every Member can have these.

"Throughout the entire route only centre line and the limits of right-of-way were surveyed. Centre-line profile only was recorded throughout the route. This meagre information was used to estimate quantities for all contracts let. Since this information was insufficient to obtain reasonable estimates of quantities of earth to be moved in the construction of railway grade, there resulted excessive overrun of work actually performed over the quantity specified in the contract."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it is. And what a way to run a railway! What a way to run a railway! Today the project looks like it's becoming another monument to the fiscal incompetence of the previous administration. The facts speak for themselves.

However, I want to stress what is evident from all the reports: namely, that it is essential to upgrade the railway built by the previous administration. The decision could be justified by the number of derailments alone: namely, 1972 — 142; 1973 — 69; 1974 — 54. This is a scandalous report of derailment resulting directly from a railway constructed on political ambition and without regard for sound construction practices and safe engineering principles. Incompetence and political chicanery results in another day of reckoning for the people of British Columbia.

In a short period of time we've learned the lessons of the Columbia River and the B.C. Railway — political ambitions ignoring the very people who will be called upon to pay for generations to come. The gross underestimation of costs was used with great effect in the Columbia fiasco. It was then: "It won't cost the taxpayers a nickel." "Nothing is freer than free, my friend." In the case of the B.C. Railway: "The greatest jewel in our crown."

The original estimates are recorded as $69 million. According to the Vancouver Province, November, 1969, the former Premier refused to make public any estimates. But they quote a PGE spokesman, quoting him saying it was likely to be around $50 million.

Now we know the truth. The day of reckoning has come. To complete this project it will cost approximately $227 million, not $50 million or $69 million — an overrun of $158 million, Mr. Speaker, on this one project alone.

If you read through Hansard, it is interesting to note that since he's been a Member of this House, the present Leader of the Opposition has had very little to say about the Columbia River treaty or the B.C. Railway in this House. He may well have a good reason for his silence. But it surprises me, in view of his recent statements that he made outside the House and reported in The Victorian on March 19 of this year. The Victorian was discussing what made various people really mad or angry. The opposition leader expressed fears of admitting that he was mad, but he went on to say that what really made him angry was "incompetence, distortion and cover-up." We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the clear evidence of these elements that I've outlined today will make him angry or mad, and let the public know just how he feels about the fiscal chaos caused by the actions of the former Social Credit administration. Because of their incompetence, distortion and cover-up policies, the taxpayers of this province have no option but to pay for these tragic blunders.

We have always, from the days of the CCF, supported and voted for the extension of the B.C. Railway to open up the north. Our votes are recorded in the Journals of this House. We have always voted on the assumption that the development of this railway was being carried out in an efficient manner, based on sound and complete engineering principles, and that this House and the public were being told the true cost of the various projects and the true financial position of the railway. We know now that we were not told the financial truth, and that the inefficiency and incompetence were orders of the day.

We have constantly followed the advice we have sought from experts in various fields. That is why I have taken this much time over the time we've been in office, step by step by step, to document what has gone on in that railroad. To rectify the errors caused by the previous administration, since we became the government the railway's research and development department and our own Department of Economic Development have continuously studied the feasibility of the Dease Lake extension, taking into account not only the costs but the economic benefits to the north and the province as a whole. The

[ Page 3176 ]

previous administration committed us to this extension, as they did the Columbia River.

Millions of dollars have already been expended to carry out this commitment. We're satisfied that given all these facts plus the fact that we're very near to signing a federal-provincial agreement which this government negotiated, which will mean a contribution of approximately $100 million from the federal government toward the northern extensions, there is no course but to go forward and complete the Dease Lake extension as efficiently as possible. I welcome the federal government's co-operation in this matter. With a target date of early 1977, the people of the north and the people of British Columbia as a whole have a right to expect no less from us.

When I opened my speech, I quoted three questions that had been posed by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom): (1) is the BCR in a financial mess, (2) what has to be done to bail it out, (3) who caused the financial mess? I have done my best to answer the questions that were posed. I think that the Member and his two independent colleagues would do well to ponder the answers.

Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the borrowing authorization of the B.C. Railway from $440 million to $640 million. This increase is required in order that the company may continue its extension programme, its improvements to the present line and its acquisition of the additional equipment needed to handle the extra traffic. Although not all of the amount of increased borrowing authorization is to be used in the coming year, it is needed now so that the company can plan its development programme and arrange the necessary borrowing at the best times and terms without restrictions of insufficient borrowing authority.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members, before we proceed on this question, that it is one thing to read an endorsement on the writ to identify the writ, but I will not condone the practice of reading the pleadings — that is, the statement of claim with all the allegations which may or may not be true.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I understood this was the endorsement on the writ. Is that not correct?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to file certain documents — namely: the B.C. Railway 1974 Annual Report; the Assessment of the Dease Lake Extension, by Touche Ross & Co., January 15, 1973; the History of the Fort Nelson and Dease Lake Extensions, by George C. Hanrahan, general counsel of the B.C. Railway, dated February 27, 1975; the History of the Railway Line, commencing at O'Dell through Dease Lake, as of January, 1975, by M.S. Wakeley, dated January 30, 1975; B.C. Railway Senior staff list, April 23, 1975; Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. circular, February 18, 1975, concerning the suspension of Douglas McKenzie Walker; and letters dated December 11 and 20, 1974 — correspondence between myself, Mr. J.S. Broadbent, and Worral, Page & Co.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. In response to your remark of just a few seconds ago, which not too many Members heard — that you would be permitting Members to read endorsements on writs, and that's all — you fully appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you are only permitting one side to have its case in this court. That is grossly unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: I will certainly give it my consideration, but I think the important point is that when you are discussing an action, and you are asking the Speaker who knows nothing of it — as I know nothing of this particular action — I must have something to identify it, and I suppose other people do, too. A mere saying that A is suing B is not sufficient information. We must know the subject matter to the extent only that there is a claim. If the Hon. Member wishes to take it up further with me, I am very open to any argument on the subject.

I must know what the claim, is about. But that does not include allegations contained in paragraph after paragraph of a statement of claim, or a statement of defence.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, as statement of claim, I assume the Hon. Premier is reading from an endorsement of writ.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't even know that at the moment, because I have no knowledge of the action.

MR. GARDOM: Perhaps you should have found out before it was read, then, Mr. Speaker. I think the procedure that was followed today was the correct procedure. I emphasize that again. But, Mr. Speaker, with every respect, I do think it is rather unfair for you to suggest that the only document that can be read is a statement of claim, which is the position of

[ Page 3177 ]

the plaintiff, without giving the defendant an opportunity to have his pleadings before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think the Hon. Member is beclouding the issue by referring to a statement of claim.

MR. GARDOM: May I finish, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I did not state that.

MR. GARDOM: May I finish my point?

MR. SPEAKER: I think I am entitled to correct a Member if he says that I made a statement that I did not make.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I gathered that your statement was to the effect that you may have an endorsement on a writ read, and that is all. I don't think that is correct.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you said statement of claim.

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry — an endorsement on a writ which is, in essence, a statement of the position of the plaintiff. It is not as expanded as a statement of claim, as you well know.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this to you: instead of taking the position you have taken this morning, give yourself an opportunity to consider it. And instead of saying that it is fine and dandy to have an endorsement on the writ read into the record, I would say the endorsement on the writ, the statement of claim, the statement of the defence. They are pleadings; they are public documents. Any Member in this House can go to any court registry and obtain one of them. Let's be practical about the thing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On the general points of order that we have been discussing today, Mr. Speaker, in your earlier judgments on the propriety or otherwise of the Premier referring to the general background of what might be a case in court, you distinguished this from previous decisions of the Chair, including: the decisions in the case of the Egg Marketing Board versus Kovachich; in the case of the marketing board legislation which we had as a bill on the floor of this House; in the case of Bremer where there was a potential law suit; and in the case of Knight where there was once more a grievance procedure. You distinguished all those previous cases from the present case.

I agree with the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that your decisions today were perfectly correct in this area. However, we have the unfortunate and unhappy problem of precedents that fly counter to the decisions today.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member should note that the distinction between this case and the others that were referred to is that the legislation concerned with in those cases had nothing to do with the events that were being described by you or the canvassing of the evidence that you attempted to do.

My point was, very simply, that no canvassing of the evidence, no canvassing of the statement of claim shall be made in that case nor should be made in this case. Now how can that be distinguished?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I may finish my point, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you once more examine the Hansard when the discussion was taking place on the marketing board legislation, which of course grew out of the Kovachich problem. You will note that decisions then were much more restrictive, obviously, than decisions today. I think today's decision was the correct one, but I would ask whether you would consider the precedent suggested today and warmly recommended today by the Premier. That is that perhaps independent legal counsel should examine possible discrepancies between judgments and come out with some sort of independent report whereby we could either have this problem of potential discrepancies dealt with one way or another. There is an unhappy precedent here that there does appear to be a double standard being practised with respect to decisions and cases before the courts.

MR. SPEAKER: I fail to see how you can make such a distinction when I have indicated today, as I did on the previous time when I discussed this with you, that you cannot canvass a court case or the evidence in a court case unless the bill before the House actually would have an adverse or some effect on the outcome or determination of that court case. I pointed that out to you then, and I refuse to permit you to debate the evidence, to debate a court case that was only collaterally and only incidentally concerned with a bill before the House.

Now I have warned the Premier and I have warned all of you that the matter should not be canvassed in terms of the evidence that may be educed before a court or the pleadings — that is, the statement of claim or the statement of defence that might be educed before a court. How can you make any distinction without really trying to rake over some rather old arguments that took place a long time ago here?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They may be old arguments, as you say, and I think this is probably why your memory of them needs refreshing by

[ Page 3178 ]

examination of Hansard. There are questions of principle which are identical. I do feel it is important for these conflicting precedents to be reconciled. I would urge you, Sir, to examine them once more and perhaps, after so doing, come down with a final and declaratory judgment as to how we can deal with all these previous conflicting decisions on the whole question of sub judice.

Sub judice has been used as a blanket to cover and wrap around every Minister with the slightest bit of trouble, going right down to the Knight case.

MR. GARDOM: It's used to stifle debate in this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey says, it has been used to stifle debate.

I feel it is time for some sort of declaration, some sort of statement, indicating what rules of sub judice will be followed in this House. The rule has been, we believe, up to now widely abused. We feel that your judgments today, Mr. Speaker, have restored the better and truer meaning of sub judice. We appreciate your decisions today, but we would only point out that previous decisions need to be dealt with. They may be old, but precedents, as we know, are a dead hand upon the operation of any Legislature. It may be that at some future date these precedents will be revived. It may be that the less — how could we put it — acceptable decisions of....

MR. SPEAKER: I really don't appreciate your rather patronizing attitude on this subject. I would like to quote just for a second the decision in the House of Commons on this very point, where it states....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May is our authority.

MR. SPEAKER: This is the Canadian House of Commons.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, is not the British House of Commons our authority in this area?

MR. SPEAKER: May I finish what I was saying?

The sub judice rule, as outlined in Beauchesne, should be interpreted narrowly. May's citation, which states that the rule does not apply to bills, should be applied. Otherwise, the initiation of legal proceedings in a court of law might stop the whole legislative process.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right on.

MR. SPEAKER: That is why, in the case of bills, the Chair must always consider whether the complete stifling of debate on the issue in the bill would prevent the legislative process. That is the distinction I made the last time. This time, on the question, I think that any canvassing of the court case and the pleadings and the statement of claim would be distinctly out of order. It does not necessarily assist us one way or the other. In the other case, the same applied.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with your decision this time, as I mentioned. The quotation from May is from page 362 of the latest edition, where it says that the sub judice rule does not apply to other proceedings on bills. This was interpreted during the decision on the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act. I believe it was interpreted in a totally different manner than the interpretation just given.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that these precedents be re-examined with the object in mind of giving Members of the House who are not lawyers, such as myself, the opportunity of having some clear guidance. At the present time, I must admit the....

MR. SPEAKER: I will look at the problem further to see if I can outline a way that you will perceive the distinction that exists. The distinction is very important. The matter that is in the bill must be of such a nature that it must be debated, regardless of a law suit that may be in the courts.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for your acceptance of the suggestion that it would be looked at. Many of us in this particular part of the chamber are very concerned about possible conflicts.

MR. SPEAKER: May we get on now with the other business of the House?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 85. Bill 8 is not printed yet, so we will go to Bill 85.

LABOUR EDUCATION CENTRE
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 85, Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On a point of order, I'd like to ask the House Leader the general sort of order of business we'll be following.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Certainly. We're going to second readings now: 126, 93, 99, 96, 100 and then committee on 77 and 87.

[ Page 3179 ]

So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call second reading of Bill 126, Agricultural Statutes Amendment Act.

AGRICULTURAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, at the advice of the Attorney-General's department several government departments that have a number of relatively minor amendments to a number of Acts are bringing in a statute law amendment Act with respect to legislation in their departments in the belief that this would be more fair to the Members in the House. They would perhaps be better able to look at these various statute law amendment Acts as opposed to having one rather large statute law amendment Act dealing with a host of departments and a host of Acts.

With respect to discussion of it I think there's little that can be said in second reading. If the Members have any questions about anything in the bill that they think should be dealt with in second reading as opposed to committee stage, I'd be quite prepared to deal with them, but I do believe that a more worthwhile discussion of this bill could be proceeded with in committee stage.

I move second reading.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's comments, but in light of the fact that the bill just came in yesterday, and the House was sitting till nearly midnight last night, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could just explain. I was hoping that we could proceed with second reading today and committee stage on Monday, as I'm going to be absent for a few days from Tuesday on. I don't feel that there's anything in the legislation. If something arises during the course of debate that would indicate that more time should be taken, that's another matter but, unless there's some reason in what would seem to be fairly reasonable changes, we're not prepared to accept the adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Member for North Okanagan wish to speak on the debate then?

MRS. JORDAN: I wish to speak on the Minister's comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it's all out of order unless you have leave of the House.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister has denied us the right to have adjournment of debate and made a comment, and I would only ask the same privilege on behalf of the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we're now in debate on second reading. The Minister's made an explanation that most of this can be taken up in committee on Monday.

I'm wondering if the Hon. Member wishes to debate second reading. If she does, I would have to ask leave of the House; otherwise she forfeits her right to speak. You moved the motion of adjournment and....

MRS. JORDAN: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Speaker, you advised the House — and I'm speaking on a point of order — that the Minister now just spoke on second reading and closed the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: No, he spoke and other Members are entitled to debate second reading, but your motion to adjourn, which was not accepted by the House, would preclude your speaking again unless you had leave of the House. I'd ask that leave of the House if the Hon. Member wishes to debate second reading.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, am I correct in assuming that Members are only allowed to speak once on second reading?

MR. SPEAKER; Yes, except the mover.

MRS. JORDAN: The mover introduces the bill and moves second reading and closes debate.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

MRS. JORDAN: And the Minister has closed the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: No, he hasn't. He moved second reading when he stood up.

MRS. JORDAN: I certainly stand to be corrected, but after the Minister denied the right of the opposition to move adjournment of this bill, in light of the fact that it just came in yesterday, he then proceeded to get on his feet, not on a point of order, as I understand it, but to speak, as you said, on second reading. I would assume from that that he has now had his position in closing debate.

MR. SPEAKER: He asked permission to explain to you why he wanted the bill forwarded on Monday. He was not speaking in debate at all.

[ Page 3180 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Then I understand that.

MR. SPEAKER: It's open to anyone to speak on second reading except yourself, but you can speak if you have the leave of the House to do so.

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might as well carry this on and I appreciate the opportunity, because quite obviously the Chair was once again not going to give the Members of the opposition the same privilege in the House as they were giving the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that I'm not giving you the same privilege...?

MRS. JORDAN: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, Hansard will reveal that the Minister got up to make a comment, not on a point of order, but just to, as you just said yourself, explain the situation. You goofed it, Mr. Speaker, because, quite frankly, I was going to accept his comments. I think this is just another example of where the Chair is really in a very....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member is attacking the Chair for using every courtesy possible to the Hon. Member. May I explain to the Hon. Member what's going on?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I'll be glad to explain.

The Hon. Member is complaining about the Chair's conduct in this matter, and I think it's only incumbent on the Chair to explain.

The Minister stood up and made a speech on second reading, and moved second reading and sat down. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) then asked for an adjournment of the debate on second reading and moved that motion. The motion was defeated by the House, which means the House goes back again to second reading. The Minister asked leave to explain to the Hon. Member. He said, "May I speak on this matter of why I'm putting it over?" — and I permitted that. It was not a debate by the Member; it was not closing off or precluding the right of this House to debate the matter in second reading. He explained why he wanted this put over until Monday, and why he felt that it would be satisfactory, and he was going away after that date. I accepted that explanation as not being in any way a debate in second reading.

Now if that's understood, the next point is: the Hon. Member then stood. I took it that she wished to speak on second reading, but to do that she would have to have leave of the House since she had moved a motion that had failed. She could not get back on her feet again to debate this bill without the unanimous leave of the House, which I immediately asked the House to give, and which the House gave. Then she turns on the Speaker and starts attacking me for what I've done. I don't see how I could be more courteous to the Hon. Member than to try to preserve her right to speak in second reading after she had lost that right to speak by her own actions.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MRS. JORDAN: I accept your ruling, as is the order of the House, but I suggest that from your own words once again in this explanation you leave considerable doubt in the minds of the Members of the House as to exactly what privileges are extended to what Members.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Nonsense!

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't make the rule, Madam. I didn't make the rule to cut your right to speak off. I didn't make that rule. That's the rule of the House.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) keeps saying "nonsense." The Speaker, with all due respect, said just now that the Minister, in saying "I'd like to explain my reasons," was asking leave. All the Member for North Okanagan requested was the same privilege. As I explained to the Speaker later, the Member for North Okanagan was going to accept his explanation, and I suggest Hansard will reveal this. Once again, with all due respect, the Chair has created an embarrassing situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if the Hon. Member misunderstood what I was doing, I would humbly apologize to her.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, we accept the Minister's explanation. In so doing, I would make to make very clear, on the part of the opposition, that this House has been in session, according to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) on Jack Webster's programme two weeks ago, for over four months. According to the record it is for under four months, but certainly for a period of well over three months. There have been times when this House has been adjourned for lack of business to undertake because of the rulings introduced by this government. Yet we find ourselves in a position at this time of introducing bills one day and being expected or asked to debate them the next day with the degree of

[ Page 3181 ]

knowledge which we should express in concerning ourselves with the legislation of this province.

This particular bill may very well be innocuous, Mr. Speaker, in terms of anything that the opposition would object to. I have examined the bill. I have it under study at this time, but I still feel that when it is my responsibility to debate a bill in this House it is then my responsibility to be sure of my knowledge and my facts. I also believe it is the right of the public, who are affected by the legislation introduced by this government, to have the opportunity when a bill is introduced to at least examine it for a period of one or two days so that they may put forth their ideas at the time of second reading.

The Hon. Speaker is well aware, as is every Member of this chamber, as are much of the public, that second reading is the time when, presumably, reasonable latitude is given to the subject. The Members are addressing themselves to the principles of the bill, and it is at that time that they can question the Minister and, hopefully, have some degree of answer from him before they must go into the detailed analysis of the bill in third reading. Mr. Speaker, we feel that this is something that has not been done in this instance....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member has not been speaking on the principle of the bill at all, but discussing the time limits, the time of the House, the rush in this bill, and so on, which has nothing to do with the principle of this bill. Will the Hon. Member please deal with the principle of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: It's very difficult to discuss the principle of the bill in that it has very little principle, which is probably one of the complaints. It does in its broad overview discuss a number of Acts. One is the Bee Act which was introduced into this House and passed at this session, and is now, once again, having an amendment after I think a week's or two weeks' time. It touches on income assurance, which is a programme in this province involving millions and millions of dollars of the public's money.

It involves itself in several detailed bills — the Stock Brands Act is a bill that most likely should have been rewritten in the first place and could be discussed at this time under the principle.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that we feel that this Minister and this government should be efficient and capable enough to bring in their legislation well thought out and in time to give the public an opportunity to understand it and have their opportunity to speak to all Members of the Legislature before the bill is discussed in principle.

MR, SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I just hope that we are talking about the same bill. It's Bill 126, Agriculture Statutes Amendment Act, 1975. My copy of this shows nothing to do at all with the beekeeper's Act.

In any case, if there are no questions or nothing to comment on with respect to the legislation, and since the Member agrees that these are fairly innocuous amendments to existing legislation, I move second reading now.

Motion approved.

Bill 126, Agriculture Statutes Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 93, Liquor Distribution Act.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, we intend to proceed with second reading of Bills 93 and 99. I think that much of the legislation can be discussed under the sections, and questions answered might relate to both, unless there is an objection heard, because the two bills are complementary.

The first bill establishes the liquor distribution branch. I want to pay tribute to the very hard work of Mr. Keith Warnes who has become the general manager of the distribution branch. He has tied into his work with dedication and understanding in a matter of weeks. And also I would like to pay tribute to Vic Woodland who will be the licensing and control area manager and who has been a long-time public servant. In sort of a new day for liquor distribution in the Province of British Columbia, I think that both of these men are owed a great deal of thanks. Also, Tony McCrossan has helped us not only with the drafting of legislation but is now helping us with the drafting of regulations to complete the implementation.

In dividing the old liquor board into the two branches, may I just give the principal features? As I say, distribution is one branch. Under that, we are establishing a listing committee which, while it is advisory only, will for the first time make the products listed and stocked on the liquor shelves of British Columbia responsive to greater public demand. We will have expert advice, but it is, nevertheless, basically a lay listing committee.

Again for the first time, because we have purchased so much from Europe, we have in the person of Mr. Peter Adams a part-time member of our listing committee and someone to advise us on our purchases from the point of view of getting the best

[ Page 3182 ]

bargains for the public system and also getting the best products that may be available. Peter Adams will sit on the listing committee.

Under the distribution Act we have the ability to create agency stores in remote areas of the province. It might be a grocery store or it might be some other existing establishment where liquor products can be sold under licence other than directly through a liquor vending store in places where it is not economical to set up a store but where the public should not have to drive 200 or 300 miles in some cases to the nearest store for the products that are available to people who live closer to what might at times be called civilization. We also have the ability to distribute liquor products such as beer in other outlets such as small stores. This Act is permissive.

We have the ability to allow the wineries of the province to have sampling rooms and possibly wine stores and to be able to conduct tours of visitors through their wineries.

We are introducing sunshine because, in addition to the liquor board which is our appellate body which we established at least a year ago under the chairmanship of Mr. Neil Davidson, we are now under this new Act requiring that when the general manager of licensing gives a decision to accept or reject an application, reasons for that decision should be given to the applicant as well as to those who might have objected to the application. Again, there is the appeal that I mentioned. The appeal procedures are somewhat widened under this Act.

Apart from such obvious things as mobile homes being homes just like any other home, we have poolside patios and things of that kind which are defined as public places. We also have the ability, under the Municipal Act, to allow the municipality to designate picnic areas where such liquor products as they may decide may be consumed. But that's up to the municipalities.

We have one general licence because we think there should be flexibility in this, and, subject to the regulations, that licence will specify on the back what conditions apply to that particular outlet, including such things as hours of opening. We have increased the penalties on minors who frequent drinking establishments. We have provided that the bartenders, subject to the Human Rights Act, may call in aid a police officer to have somebody who is engaging in disorderly conduct removed from the drinking establishment. We have a section dealing with the breathalyser machines which can be installed in the various outlets.

We have put our licensing fees for breweries, wineries and distilleries on a gallonage basis. We have provided for the recognition of agents who heretofore have been rather shadowy creatures employed in the liquor industry but now legitimized, licensed and able to conduct their business in an ethical way, subject to cancellation of their licence.

Mr. Speaker, there are other sections in the bill, in the two bills, some of them really of minor interest, and I think they can best be discussed under the various sections. So at the moment what I am doing is moving second reading of Bill 93.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I don't quite know how we can discuss at the second readings both bills at the same time. But if we could start with Bill 93, first of all just a brief comment. I think it makes a good deal of good sense to split the responsibilities for the liquor administration, and I'm sure that it will work to everyone's advantage in British Columbia in the future.

I'd like to speak to each bill separately, if I may, because Bill 93 doesn't concern me.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, thank you, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: For clarification, I think that each Member should deal with the bill before us. Then when it comes to the other one, and any other remarks, do it again.

MR. McCLELLAND: I agree that probably the best way to handle this bill is in the sections when we get to committee stage. But I'm a little confused about the method by which the Attorney-General says we can establish outlets for beer and wine, or whatever we decide, in other areas such as small grocery stores. I can see the section where the Minister may establish agents, and I understand, too, that he'll use that section to provide for outlets in those kinds of remote areas where perhaps the people don't have the opportunity of a liquor store in their area. But if he's also considering that that's the section under which we'll establish agents, which may be small grocery stores, I see this open to some horrendous abuses.

In other jurisdictions where that kind of leeway was allowed either to the cabinet, to a governmental body or to some servant of the government, we've seen in the United States and in areas of Quebec where political patronage and other abuses become very prevalent. In the decision of which small grocery store gets the licence, what is a small grocery store, why did that grocery store on that corner get a licence and not the one over there...? I just think it's far too loose, if that's the section under which we're dealing, to allow even the possibility of those kinds of abuses. I'm certainly not suggesting that there will be political abuses, but there could be all kinds of other abuses as well.

[ Page 3183 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you opposed to the whole thing?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I didn't say that. I'm opposed to that method of establishing licences in what are small grocery stores. We don't know what small grocery stores are. Maybe that shouldn't be where they should go; maybe they should go in large grocery stores as well. I'm just saying that the whole system, if that's the way the Attorney-General plans to make those licences available, is open to these kinds of abuses.

You know, the Attorney-General isn't going to be Attorney-General for ever, even though he might wish to be. We might not have such a fair and non-discriminatory Attorney-General next time around. The Hon. Economic Development Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) may be....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're attacking the Minister of industry now.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, the Economic Development Minister isn't in the House at the moment.

Anyway, that concerns the opposition, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Attorney-General has said that they plan to go slow on the establishment of these kinds of agencies. But if this section means that we establish outlets for people who live in areas that don't have outlets at the moment, that's fine. I think that's an admirable approach to take. But if it also means that we're going to use this kind of section to also establish where these outlets will be in corner grocery stores, then I say that's not good enough and that it must be much tighter than that. Some kind of formula has to be developed so that there is no discrimination at any time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the Minister could explain where duty-free liquor stores are planned to be established or if that has been decided yet, whether they will be established as agencies or whether the government will run them as a normal part of the liquor administration branch. The same goes with the possibility of establishing liquor stores at distilleries, which is quite a departure from the method which is now used. Will those be contracted out to the distillery, Mr. Speaker, or will the government again, as a normal extension of the liquor administration branch, operate those stores in the distilleries as well? Will they sell only that distiller's product, or will they carry a full range of products? Will they sell beer as well as liquor, or wine as well as liquor, or will the distillery itself actually operate under contract to the government that liquor outlet and sell only that distiller's product?

I don't think I have any other comments on this bill. I would like to speak to Bill 99 when it comes up, Mr. Speaker, but that one particular section about the establishment of those other agency outlets I think needs some clarification and some assurances from the Minister that there will be a formula established that won't allow any discrimination or any possibility of any kind of abuses, either political or otherwise.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that I will certainly support this bill. I want to compliment the Attorney-General on doing such a thorough job of drafting the bill. I know the care and attention that he gave to the details of the drafting. (Laughter.)

I would like to ask him about the meaning of one or two sections. I would gather that one of the principles we could be supporting, but not necessarily supporting, by voting for this legislation would be the establishment of wine merchants.

If I interpret section 8 correctly, the Attorney-General could designate a government wine store and under section 15 the store manager could bring in liquors for sale that are not part of the normal listing. But the question is: will that take place? In other words, can we anticipate now or at some future time as a result of this legislation that we might have wine merchants in British Columbia who would be allowed to bring in the best wines in the world in case lots and then sell them to people who would like to enjoy something with a little better international reputation than our local product?

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to elaborate on the opinions that I hold with regard to some of the 345 different products from some of the local wineries that are on our liquor store shelves — I won't say "grace the shelves" — but I think that with the many thousands of wines around the world, there is a place for a little more variety. That of course is traditionally done by wine merchants with a sensitive palate and discriminating taste.

Mind you, the Attorney-General is given awesome powers under this bill. I say awesome because the decisions that are within his power under the regulations of this Act are similar in scope to powers given by former Attorney-Generals of this province and their counterparts in other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States. The history of Attorney-Generals getting into difficulty has very frequently surrounded their administration of liquor regulations. It is just an unfortunate curse which in many places has gone with this particular office because it has been given arbitrary powers over the handling of liquor.

I would certainly hope that there never would be any cause for criticism of our Attorney-General with regard to the way wines in British Columbia are handled. Certainly, given broad powers to wine merchants, then nobody would be able to complain.

[ Page 3184 ]

Certainly the big five vintners of British Columbia who have claimed that their product without difficulty can stand up to anything else in the world would not object to a little bit of competition coming in.

I would just like to ask a little aside, Mr. Speaker, if I may. That is: is there some kind of directive that has gone out from your department with regard to imported wines being served at official functions of the government where government funds have been involved directly or indirectly?

I've been to some of these where execrably bad wines have been placed on the table, and as a proud British Columbian I've been embarrassed at the faces that have been made. I just wondered if this kind of thing is emanating from some official source.

I would sooner apologize for British Columbia's weather, Mr. Speaker, in the wintertime when guests come here, than to have to deal with people who slip a glass under the table during the middle of an otherwise very fine meal. I discovered, to my embarrassment, at a dinner I was hosting just a day or two ago, as a result of a brief interlude I had away from the House, the consequences of this regulation.

Anyway, perhaps the Attorney-General could clarify that, but I'd certainly welcome....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I could name one or two that are reasonable, but I could name 355 that are execrably bad. I don't want to go through the list now, but I just think that there's a very simple cure to all of this. It's within the powers, as I understand it, of the Attorney-General to deal with that under this legislation and I'm really asking whether he's going to be prepared to do that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in this debate about the powers that are given to the Attorney-General to act by regulation and to carry out the rather broad brushstrokes that are comprised within this particular bill. I'm not going to deal with it in the same manner as the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who suggests that the Attorney-General is going to be faced with serious, difficult decisions regarding licensing. That's true enough, but there's another awesome power which is contained in this legislation and I think that we all should recognize it.

The Attorney-General is being given the authority through this branch to extend the outlets for beer, wine and liquor on an arbitrary basis throughout this province. I just hope that the Attorney-General in exercising this power will recognize the devastation that can follow if we continue the present mystery which is allowed to surround alcohol in whatever form it may be for human consumption.

I will recall in the northern part of my constituency when, as a result of pressures brought by the merchants and citizens in the area, the government was encouraged to open a liquor store. I can demonstrate, and that community can demonstrate, the devastation that followed that event. There happens to be a large Indian reserve in this part of my constituency, and subsequent to the opening of the liquor store it was possible to tell the time of the month in relation to the time when the Indians received funds by the increase in drunkenness and the conduct which follows upon those events.

Now the Attorney-General is going to have the power, if it isn't appropriate to open a store, at least to establish an agency through some other commercial outlet. This is another way in which this kind of devastation can be spread to the outlying areas of the province.

Now I'm not a prohibitionist in any way....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The licensing manager does that, subject to appeal — I don't do it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm saying that you're taking the authority under this legislation to give somebody the right to expand this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's subject to appeal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Of course it's subject to appeal, but, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have to recognize what we're doing by this legislation.

As I was about to say, I'm not a prohibitionist at all. I enjoy a glass of wine or a glass of beer or a drink as well as anybody else — sometimes even two.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On rare occasions three. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the difficulties we face is that with the control of licensing outlets which have been exercised by the government, and will under this legislation continue to be exercised by the government, we still have a mystique which surrounds this matter of alcoholic beverages which I think encourages people in their use.

The Attorney-General has taken a major step forward and I commend him for it, but I don't know why we don't start to treat alcoholic beverages as a normal commodity available for sale in any of our stores without restriction, but subject to licensing and subject to control. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't make certain that there aren't any improper activities carried on, but because you choose between one place and another you give to this particular

[ Page 3185 ]

product a mystique it really doesn't deserve.

I think that if beer is to be sold in government stores or elsewhere, then it should be sold in exactly the same way as soda pop which, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is every bit as dangerous as beer, and sometimes more dangerous. It rots your teeth. At least beer doesn't do that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What about the sale to minors?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You have restrictions on sale to minors, of course.

Some people are concerned about the possibility of robbery and burglaries of liquor stores. It costs about as much to buy a half-dozen bottles of Coke today as it costs to buy a half-dozen bottles of beer. Money is no problem. I just think that the merchants, under proper regulations and inspection, should have the opportunity of selling this commodity the same as any other. Then we downgrade the importance that is given to this commodity by the techniques of the past. Only in moving that way are we going to bring true opportunity for moderation to all of our citizens. That is what you are aiming at, yet we seem to be so hesitant to take the step forward.

If it is the case, I would rather have a young person go to a grocery store and buy a half-dozen bottles of beer than I would have that same young person pay some older person to go to a liquor store and get it for him. That is what is happening.

I suppose we will deal with this in the next bill, but insofar as the control that is exercised on other licensing outlets is concerned, a very senior member of the Attorney-General's staff, even last evening, must have recognized how ineffective some of these controls might be in some of our establishments. Therefore I think that we should make the move to placing this commodity on the shelf the same as any other, and treat it as a normal article of commerce and get rid of the mystique. Then if there are dangers, attack those in the same way we do with other dangerous commodities. There are many of them sold in the grocery stores today that are far more dangerous to humans that is beer or wine, but we don't have any restrictions on those. We have commodities that people can buy which, carelessly used, can result in death, blindness....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Vanilla extract and things like that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. I was going to come to that under the other bill, but perhaps this is the appropriate time to discuss this. Is the Attorney-General going to stop the terrible practice of bay rum and vanilla extract sales? Are we finally going to come to the situation where those stores in Vancouver which prey upon unfortunate people in that city by the sale of beverages which have a most devastating effect upon the human system...? Is the Attorney-General finally going to bring an end to that practice by the liberalization of these regulations? I think that we are entitled to have some assurances from the Attorney-General as to the extent to which he sees us going under this legislation, and the way in which he is prepared to terminate some of the unacceptable practices of the past.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect that I would like to touch on, dealing with some of the comments that have been made by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I don't feel it would be proper if I didn't take part after hearing what he had to say, and I hope I misunderstood. That was when he suggested to the Attorney-General that you shouldn't put a liquor store where there are impoverished groups or people on the lower end of socio-economic scale because of the way if affects them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I didn't say that.

HON. MR. LEA: He related it to when they put a liquor store in the northern end of his riding, and the devastation that followed, the drunkenness.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's right.

HON. MR. LEA: He tied that in with the Indian people who live there and the way they acted after that liquor store made available to them alcoholic beverages.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right.

HON. MR. LEA: I just can't follow that kind of reasoning. I am not saying that what he said happened didn't happen. I am sure it did. But I don't think the solution is not to put the liquor store there or make available to those people the same kind of services that we make available to the rest of the people in society. I think it is a complete misunderstanding of what happens at that lower end of the socio-economic group.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You're missing my point.

HON. MR. LEA: Maybe I did miss your point. You can clarify it for me later. But the way I read it was that people at the lower end of the socio-economic scale can't handle alcoholic beverages the way people in the middle and upper-middle classes can.

[ Page 3186 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That is not what I meant.

HON. MR. LEA: That may be true because of the kind of poverty quagmire they find themselves in — the treadmill effect they get into, and the low level of expectation people have in that area. But it would seem to me that to make that kind of plea to the Attorney-General, not to make services available to that end of the socio-economic scale that are going to be available to the top end, is horrible.

If we are going to start dealing with those kinds of problems in society, it is to make sure that those kinds of people have the opportunity to be educated in the same way that everyone else is in our society. It is like saying that at the lower end of the socio-economic scale you find that they have larger families which they can't often care for. Then instead of dealing with that problem by trying to teach those people something about birth control and get them out of that poverty where they find themselves, we pass legislation in this House to deny them sex. It's the same thing.

I think if we are going to start dealing with those kinds of problems, we have to start by getting those people out of that poverty level, off that treadmill they are on and into the general stream of society. Sometimes I wonder why they would want to be here, in the areas that we are in. But I think that we have to handle the problem that way and try to bring these people along through social programmes and education, and through giving them some economic base. To deny them services because they find themselves in poverty and at the lower end of that socio-economic scale is something that I just can't go along with.

MRS. JORDAN: I must say that I fail to see the rationale of the Minister of Highway's comments.

HON. MR. LEA: I'm sure you do.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't always agree with his approach, and not in this instance, but I think the Minister has taken a very reasonable argument from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) about a very serious public concern and tried to twist it around and masquerade it into class warfare. This is absolutely wrong and that Minister should hang his head in shame. He is consistently doing it.

This is a very serious problem. Alcohol is a very serious problem. There are two factors in our society: one feels that if you completely liberalize the attitude to alcohol, the problem will go away because common sense will prevail; the other feels that the liberalization of alcoholic beverages in the province is not going to answer the problem at all. I hope to have here, under the next bill, some research that I have done in relation to this.

I believe the Attorney-General is as contained as the rest of us. I don't think there is anyone who is temperate in this House, but I do think that a lot of us have a serious concern about the medical statistics and figures that are emerging in the countries where so-called liberalization and civilized drinking takes place. They are alarming.

When the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said that pop rots your teeth, he is right. And it appears that booze rots your liver. If it is a matter of which of the druthers you'd have, I would suggest that we have to take other steps beyond just updating liquor laws. I would hope that the Attorney-General, in closing debate on second reading of this bill, will outline very clearly some of the educational programmes he intends to introduce in British Columbia to make young people and adults aware of the serious social and economic problems and the very serious health problems that evolve from civilized drinking.

I don't want to convey the impression that I am opposed to drinking, because I am certainly not. But I think that this is far too serious an issue to just shrug our shoulders and jump on the bandwagon of "Let's open it up and see what happens." I think that we have to listen to those who are authorities in the fields of health and social education.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

On that point, the Minister of Highways suggested that those people who have less material assets, or, as he puts them, the lower socio-economic scale, couldn't handle their liquor as well as those in the so-called upper socio-economic scale. I would suggest to him that he has his economic scales mixed up. I know many people who he would class the lower socio-economic scale — the Pemberton area for example — who derive a very good income. They work in the bush or in construction. It isn't a matter of money income; it's a matter of one's ability to handle money, and one's priorities in their personal life. I would suggest to him that they probably handle a tankard of beer or a bottle of whisky better than the people he referred to as being in the upper socio-economic scale. I think that overindulgence in liquor is evident in most people in the same way; it doesn't matter from what interest they come or where they come from.

Also, I would like to suggest on that point that the people in the so-called upper socio-economic scale, as he calls it, have just as many problems. They may take a different form, but I suggest there are people who work, who sit in the press gallery, which might be considered the upper socio-economic scale, who own a grocery store that we are talking about, who are lawyers, who are doctors, or who are maybe Members

[ Page 3187 ]

of the Legislature, but feel at times in life that they are on a treadmill of frustration — maybe a quagmire of mediocrity tied in to insurance, mortgages and income tax — maybe they suffer frustrations in their jobs.

I just find that the Minister of Highways' (Hon. Mr. Lea's) statements are very shallow and tend to continually harp on the emphasis of trying to stimulate class warfare, which we shouldn't have in British Columbia. We have been very fortunate. We have really evolved to an almost classless society in British Columbia. Certainly we have our problems in terms of some people who definitely need more income, but as a whole you just have to get on the B.C. Ferries, which has got to be one of the greatest examples. It is not who you are that counts — everybody is there in bright sport shirts and jeans or whatever they want to wear. People mix as people, and they enjoy each other as people. That is generally a concept around British Columbia and I don't think we should be doing anything to try and foster anything else. I think we should be speaking in positive terms and developing more and more that type of an attitude in British Columbia.

There are two or three points I would like to bring to the Attorney-General's attention, because I don't think he is going to solve all the socio-economic problems in British Columbia. But in relation to this bill, I would like to go back to the comments by my colleague for Langley (Mr. McClelland) as to the regulations for offering licences to outlets. I want to refer specifically to places like grocery stores.

I think the definition is extremely important. There are many areas, not so much in the metropolitan areas, as the Minister knows, but certainly in the non-metropolitan areas where you might have three little grocery stores. I'll cite one actually right here in James Bay, on the corner of Simcoe and Menzies Street, I believe it is. There is the little Simcoe Foodliner, there is a Safeway and there is another little grocery outlet. All are within no more than 200 or 300 feet of each other. Who is going to get the licence?

This is predominant if you go into Vancouver, North Vancouver, the Langley area, and then you start moving around areas like the Okanagan. You'll find that there tend to be multiple little grocery stores.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It might be all three if they fit in the definition.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, this is the point. If this is the case, then they are all operating on the same basis and each has the same opportunity to compete openly with each other.

There is one point that concerns me very much. That is a statement made by the Attorney-General. I wouldn't want to misquote him. I know he realizes that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't mind.

MRS. JORDAN: There was an inference made by the Attorney-General in the introduction of the bill....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've objected to being quoted sometimes, but I've never objected to being misquoted.

MRS. JORDAN: If I am quoting you accurately I'm very disturbed. I object to you being quoted accurately. The inference was that somewhere along the line in the last few months unless beer sales were introduced in some of these little grocery stores they would go under. This is true, Mr. Attorney-General. I know that you've got letters because I have encouraged people to write to you. I know where they are from. One is from within the precincts of the buildings.

The disgrace here is: what kind of society are we that a small business operation is going to go under unless it has a licence to sell liquor? It's sort of a booze-cruise socialism. Those letters that you have, Mr. Attorney-General, have indicated that the increase in taxes, the increase in their costs of overhead, the increase in their powers, and the increase in their licensing since this government took over has cut into their meagre profit margin to the point where they simply cannot make a go of it. I refer you to one just down the street. These stores felt that operating as an outlet for liquor was one of the very few ways they had to make their businesses pay. I think that this is a very sad state of affairs.

If it is the desire of the Attorney-General to allow or encourage grocery stores and small outlets to serve and sell beer that's fine. But let it not be on the basis that this is one of the ways that we are going to save business. That's just sick, sick, sick. Surely the climate in British Columbia should be such that a small family operation or a small grocery store can provide a service to the public without being absolutely beaten to death by their overhead.

These are some of the points that we were trying to explain to the Attorney-General and to his government in previous debate when they glibly increased the cost of doing business in this province under the guise of attacking the big corporate structure when in fact it has so drastically hurt the small operator.

There is the problem of age and who is going to sell the liquor, I don't want to refer to the other bill — 99 — except I think that in section 39 of Bill 99 the Minister clearly outlines that to sell liquor to a minor is a punishable offence. What is going to be the

[ Page 3188 ]

situation in small grocery stores when people under the age of 19 will be selling liquor and selling beer? I have a letter of this matter right now, and it has been referred to the Attorney-General's department.

There are grocery operators in the province who are very concerned for right now. Should they hire students for the summer? I assume the Attorney-General is not going to have this in effect, so that isn't a problem. But would he please, in closing the debate, make very clear what is going to be the situation when you have minors working alone, as often is the case in small grocery stores? Will they be able to sell the liquor that is sold in the store or not?

The last point that I'd like to bring up is the matter of the personnel policy of the Liquor Control Board. Those who work for the Liquor Control Board fully concur with the posting of positions as vendor or the chief clerk. They don't have any objection to this at all, but what appears to be happening, and what they object to, is that other clerks or other employees in the liquor stores do not come from the local area. If I may, I would cite the example of the new liquor store which is going to be opening in Vernon. We have a liquor store operating currently. The positions of vendor and chief clerk have been posted and advertised, and they appreciate this. But they have been advised that local people will not have priority in applying for permanent jobs with the service. There are over 70 applicants in the Vernon liquor store at this time from people within the North Okanagan region, who live there, who've made their homes there, who have their families there, who would like to have a job in the new liquor store, but they've been told that the only jobs that really will be open to them are those part-time jobs. I recognize that they can bid on the permanent jobs, but the option is now open so that anyone in the province with seniority will have priority.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the union agreement.

MRS. JORDAN: But as Minister, don't you feel that it's your responsibility to see that local people are not denied the right to jobs in their own area, where they may be very competent, where they've made their life, where they have their families, because of a negotiation between the government and any organization?

What I'm asking the Attorney-General to do is have a policy where the chief positions are posted, but have an open policy of employing....

DEPUTY SPEAKER. Order, please. I just would ask the Hon. Member if she wouldn't mind saving the more specific points for committee stage. However, if it's germane to the principle of the bill then it's relevant.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comment and I will, but if I just finish this last little bit then I'm hopeful that we will be able to discuss it in more detail in committee stage, and the Attorney-General will have a positive answer. I'm asking today for the assurance of this Minister that there will not be discrimination against those people among those 70 applicants in the North Okanagan who live there, who want to work in the liquor store, but that they will have an opportunity to apply for the permanent positions. Go ahead with the posting for the vendor and chief of staff; that's fine, but not the other positions. Let them have the right to work.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In speaking to the principle of this legislation, I would like to express a certain amount of concern, similar to that expressed by the Minster of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), about the fact that this legislation comes in without being placed in a proper framework in terms of education of people who might be prone to alcoholism or drug problems or things of that nature. I personally believe in the principle of this legislation, but the Minister of Highways, I know, is fully aware that 50 per cent of the deaths on the highways in some are related to alcohol use.

HON. MR. LEA: It's higher than that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Highways corrects me. My figures are far too conservative, he says. He says much more than 50 per cent of the deaths in this province on the highways are related to alcohol.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is looking most attentive, and, of course, she's charged with an almost impossible responsibility — I'll be totally fair to her and say she has an impossible task — of attempting, through the school system, to try and educate young people about the problems of alcohol. I can only say that her job here is impossible. What criticism she may receive from me from time to time on this is said only that I know there is no way she can do the total job, and it would only be in terms of how well she can do even a minor portion of it that we would even dare to criticize her. The problems of alcoholism are enormous in Canada.

We have 20 per cent of the students in British Columbia high schools using drugs of some kind, probably higher. That's marijuana figures. Cocaine is in widespread use, but alcohol is still by far the No. 1 drug problem of B.C. and Canada. We have to consider legislation such as this in terms of how we're dealing with the overall problem.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is limited legislation. I've read it carefully. I've read the Acts

[ Page 3189 ]

that it repealed, such as the plebiscite Act and others, but I do feel that we're going to have to start grasping some of the major problems and dealing with them in terms of principle. I really do appreciate the comments of the Minister of Highways along this line — that we are dealing with enormous problems.

Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are drinking 30 per cent more per capita than they were 25 years ago. The amount of drinking is going up. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the problems related to drinking do not increase proportionately to the increase in drinking. In other words, if you have a 25 per cent increase in drinking per capita you don't get a 25 per cent increase in problems. You get a substantially higher figure in terms of problems because, of course, you reach certain saturation levels, be it as individual or society, and you start running into a geometric progression as you increase the consumption of alcohol. We're not alone; other countries have even more frightening increases.

I should point out that not only are we drinking more, but we're drinking at a younger age. I found it to be one of the most curious things of the last few years, Mr. Speaker, and I know you as a person involved in social problems have undoubtedly experienced the same concern. Parents, teachers and ordinary citizens showed happiness that kids seemed to be turning off marijuana and turning on to booze. Yet the damaging effect, as pointed out by the LeDain commission and the United States federal examination of marijuana, which I'm afraid I don't have the correct technical title for, acting independently, came to the identical conclusion that alcohol is infinitely more of a drug problem with young people than marijuana might be.

Certainly we applaud the Attorney-General's efforts to pick up drug pushers. We applaud his efforts, when they occur, to take some action in the case of drugs. We encourage him to go out and check on the airport at Vancouver as has been done in Montreal, to make sure that our major airport in terms of dealing with the Orient does not become a major source of supply of drugs. But at the same time, while seizure of three pounds of heroin makes a great headline, a more insidious problem, a more widespread problem, a more damaging problem is the extended use of alcohol in Canada. I really don't feel that we can divorce this problem from legislation such as we're dealing with now.

Eighty-five per cent of all male British Columbians use alcohol. Seventy-six per cent of all females, according to the figures I've been given, use alcohol. These are all in some ways potential alcoholics; all who are using it are indeed potential. Not all, of course, will become that. We are not the worst. British Columbia uses on the average, I understand, somewhat over 10 litres of absolute alcohol on a per capita basis per year. In France the figure is two and a half times that. And in France, of course, they have reached essentially the self-saturation point. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that's a very interesting comparison because in France almost half of all expenditures on health are expenditures to deal with alcohol-related illness. I think the figure is somewhat around 45 per cent.

So we have to realize that we are getting into an area where we are going to have increased social expenditure, increased problems, if indeed we increase alcohol use. If this legislation leads to the increase of the use of alcohol, we have to consider it in that light.

The point has been well made that you should not restrict the consumption of alcohol simply by making it inconvenient for certain sectors of society and making it convenient for others. Obviously that's a good point. The population must have general laws, applicable to all, and we must not discriminate on the basis of a person's ability to be able to drive 20 miles to a liquor store or a person's ability to live in a community which has persuaded the government to have late hours for their store. But the fact is we're dealing with an enormous problem. The Canadian Medical Association has pointed out that booze, or liquor, is Canada's No. 1 social disease and social problem of that nature.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's the No. 1 crime problem.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Attorney-General says it's the No. 1 crime problem. Absolutely true.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Alcohol's right up there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's absolutely right. I'd just like to give a few figures from Ontario in a recent year. This deals with deaths. It deals strictly with the health aspect not the crime problem talked about by the Attorney-General. It was a study done based on coroners' reports and shows the range of alcohol-related illness. It goes far beyond the normal indicators which we normally get which are generally much more restrictive. This dealt with the 22,600 people between the ages of 20 and 70 who died in this particular year.

It says that of these deaths 38 per cent of the cirrhosis deaths were due to alcohol. That might be expected. But they found that 22 per cent of deaths with respect to peptic ulcers were alcohol-induced. Eighteen per cent of suicides were related directly to alcohol, as were 15 per cent of pneumonia deaths, 16 per cent of deaths due to cancer of the upper digestive and respiratory tract, and more than 5 per cent of the deaths due to heart and artery disease. In addition, alcohol was involved in 45 per cent of death

[ Page 3190 ]

by poisoning, and almost 25 per cent of deaths due to falls and other physical trauma were the result of impairment due to alcohol. So we have in the straight health area an enormous problem, Mr. Speaker.

I think that this legislation that we have today is really an attempt to bring in some of the ideas of the Premier on his trip to Europe two years ago where he went and came back lauding the style of drinking in Europe. From The Vancouver Sun, shortly after he returned, he said: "In Paris the sidewalk cafés are just fantastic. My resistance to these things has dropped. I think they're very attractive. I think there's room for it in B.C. — I really do. I was impressed. I was very impressed." He came back with a euphoric glow which seemed to last right across the skies.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) asked me what I mean by that. I mean that when speaking he used grand eloquent and glowing phrases about the virtues of the sidewalk cafés in Paris. I could quote you what he said about the German beer halls.

I think it's important to refer to this because it was only then that the Attorney-General got around to making changes and suggesting changes.

The Premier told a press conference that he had told Attorney-General Alex Macdonald about his change of heart and indicated Macdonald will start considering legislation to introduce a European approach to drinking in this province. That was June 15, of '73; we're virtually two years later. The Attorney-General, with his usual commendable speed, has legislation before us now which indicates he's been carefully considering the Premier's instructions and we're now getting legislation which indicates that we're liberalizing (to use the word in its small "l" sense) the liquor selling in the province.

But for the Attorney-General to close this debate without indicating to the House what he has learned in the two years that he's had, what statistics he has gathered in the two years that he's had, what studies he's looked at from other jurisdictions in the two years that he's had, in terms of relating alcoholism, illness, disease, death, alcohol and crime, alcohol and drugs.... For him to come in here and propose this legislation without giving us the benefit of those two industrious years that he's spent digging up information on these problems would be for him to be derelict in his duty. I know that in closing this debate he's going to give us some hard, cold statistics and some information gathered by the officials of his department or by the officials of the Department of Health or by the officials of the Highways department dealing with the problems of alcohol in our society here and what we can expect in terms of liberalizing these laws.

AN HON. MEMBER: He owes it to the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) says he owes it to the House. He owes it to the people of British Columbia, in particular to the parents, to tell us what this legislation is going to lead to. Mr. Speaker, if he is unable to give such a speech indicating in concrete terms what we can expect from this legislation in terms of social problems, as I mentioned earlier, he would have failed in his duty. If he feels unable at this time to offer such information I urge him to so indicate to me and I will adjourn the debate, because there is no way that a Minister of the Crown should bring in legislation which is going to affect crime rate, costs for hospitals, deaths in hospitals, illness rates and the social fabric of our society without indicating what information he has on this.

I don't want to simply give a speech outlining the evils of alcohol. They exist — I just mentioned a few statistics to put them in context. But I do feel it's unfair for the Attorney-General to bring in legislation to talk about it in vague and general terms in his usual charming way but to leave the problems up to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) or the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) or the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and for him to go his merry way without thought as to what the consequences will be. He himself or his department will find consequences of this legislation if it leads to increased use of alcohol and if in turn, as it inevitably must, it will lead to increased crime. I

I think that when he comes to terminating this debate he should be prepared to give some cold, hard information on what the expected damage to our society will be from this particular trend which started with the Premier's trip to Europe.

Alcohol is now cheap, relative to the cost of food and other commodities which people purchase. It may not seem cheap at the liquor store, but it is cheap relative to other expenditures. Alcohol is widespread and becoming more so. Alcohol is being used in increasing amounts. I trust the Minister in closing this debate will give us, as I have requested before, proper information.

Mr. Speaker, I must amend my remarks to add in the problems of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), who has just come into the run.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He has the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He has the Alcohol and Drug Commission, says the Attorney-General, with a smug look on his face, and therefore it is his problem. But that's not good enough.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's both of our problems.

[ Page 3191 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is everybody's problem. If we are to vote on this particular bill, we are going to have to know what you have come up with. You have had two years since you were instructed, according to the Premier, to come up with major changes in the liquor laws. You have had two full years since June 15 when he made that statement. By now you must have some information. You must have some cold, hard facts to put before the House. Maybe you didn't last March in your estimates when I questioned you on this and asked you for information which you didn't, or were not able to, provide me with at this time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, all you need now is for the Minister to get up and give us some information. I don't really see how the Minister of Human Resources could vote for this legislation. I don't see how the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) could vote for this legislation. I don't see how the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) could vote for this legislation. Certainly the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) couldn't when their problems are so compounded to such a great degree by making alcohol more readily available. I am not saying that therefore the bill has to be thrown out. We have to have restrictive legislation....

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Are you a prohibitionist?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Shuswap thinks this whole matter of alcoholism is a joke, but it is not a joke. We want to make sure that in voting on this, we have some information. If the Attorney-General has not yet got it, I suggest having this bill dropped until the next session so that the studies can be properly done.

If we can leave a bill such as the election expenses Act or redistribution over to another session, we can leave this one over. But if he does not have this information now, we should not proceed with the vote.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Read the reports. The reports are all there.

Mr. Wallace moves adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS AND
WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. R.A. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 127 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.