[ Page 1277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act (Bill 38) Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1277

Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 21) Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading — 1277

Statement

Details of western Premiers' conference. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1277

Mr. King — 1277

Mr. Gibson — 1278

Mr. Wallace — 1279

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 10.

Mr. King — 1279

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1280

Mr. King — 1280

Mr. Wallace — 1281

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1285

Mr. Rogers — 1287

Mrs. Wallace — 1289

Mr. Hewitt — 1291

Mr. Cocke — 1293

Mr. Rogers — 1295

Mr. Macdonald — 1295

Mr. Barber — 1295

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1296

Mr. Macdonald — 1297

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1297

Ms. Brown — 1298

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1301

FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning is a Mr. Rick Palmer. Mr. Palmer is principal of Project 15 in my constituency, and he has with him two students. I would like the House to make them welcome please.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to ask the House to acknowledge the presence of a number of old friends of mine, colleagues I might say, who are here on behalf of the B.C. Recreation Association to attend a conference entitled "Outlook on Leisure." Their coming at this particular time to the Legislature is of particular interest, and I understand that the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) helped them to open their event yesterday.

I would just like to mention a few of the people who I believe are in the gallery, I hope: my ex-assistant, Mrs. Coleen Roberts. Also I hope that Mr. Marshall Smith is here and O'Margarette Shegehiro and Bill Cook. I also understand that Ethel Oliver is in the galleries and on and on. There are many of them. I think the Empress Hotel is certainly being blessed with the presence of these fine recreationists, and I hope that they will have a very good stay in Victoria and will be joining us again soon for further observations as we carry on the people's business.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the galleries today is a group of students from Lake Trail Junior Secondary School in Courtenay. They are accompanied by their teacher Terry Jarvis, and I would ask the House to make them welcome this morning.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to bid welcome to a very old friend and associate of mine, Mr. Bruce Lepetich.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Macdonald, Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure 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.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It's too late, Alex.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Waterland, Bill 21, Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976, 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. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement and table documents.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to know that in tabling these five documents today...that, as a new Premier meeting for the first time with my counterparts in Western Canada, the experience of developing a western regional approach to some of our Canadian problems was an indication to me of people coming together for a positive purpose that could be extended to the national scene with great benefit to all Canadians.

While all different parts of our country will continue to have different points of view and while in some areas of public policy we can be expected to hold differences and in some things even be competitive, the search for things which unite us is the most important thing of all. I would particularly like to emphasize to members of this House that at no time in our history have issues on the national scene been of such consequence to Canadians.

Our constitution is again up for review. All of the financial arrangements which bind the federal government to the provinces are up for review in this current year. Never before have so many of these financial arrangements been on the negotiating table at the same time. I'd just point out that the results of these negotiations will affect the provinces for at least five years, and for between five to 10 years the results of these negotiations may extend to future governments. That's why they are of such importance at this time. Therefore when you review these five documents I am sure you will be pleased to know that the four western Premiers on this important question of financial distribution in our country came away from the conference with a unanimous position. I think it's fair to say that at no time has the western region been able to display such a common concern about the financial arrangements which exist between the federal government and the provinces.

As you know, in a preliminary way I will be meeting in Ottawa on May 6 and June 14 to discuss

[ Page 1278 ]

the important questions covered by these communiques. I'm sure that the House will appreciate the significance of the paper on fiscal arrangements, setting out as it does a point of view expressed by the governments of the four Canadian provinces.

I'm pleased to report as well that the conference accepted the British Columbia position that on the economic front the four western provinces have more to gain by working together than they do in going separate ways, while still allowing some competition.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've accepted a common position on the matter of tariffs. We accepted the need for a common approach to transportation so our west coast ports can play their part in developing an expanded Canadian trade position on the Pacific Rim.

In addition, the western Premiers agreed to establish educational and research facilities on a cooperative basis, without competition in this regard. It should be possible to establish in western Canada facilities of excellence which by common consent can be located in a single part of the region. These would relate to the development in some of our resource and secondary industries.

These are but a few of the positive areas of cooperation which were developed out of the paper presented by British Columbia to this conference.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the western premiers, over the period of two days, established a working arrangement for solving regional problems. I look forward to extending this kind of dialogue that we had in Medicine Hat onto the national scene. I firmly believe that the future of this country will be better served if elected governments seek to give emphasis to those things which unite us, rather than search for those things in which we can divide.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I want to thank the Premier for his statement and just make a few observations.

I'm pleased to learn that the new Social Credit administration is continuing the cooperation that was developed between the four western provinces by the NDP government over the last three years. Indeed, the cooperation that the Premier has outlined should involve itself and should exist not only with respect to first ministers, but with respect to all departments of government. I would point out that that certainly was the case under our administration.

We had, on a departmental basis in various departments, developed common education and research facilities funded through the cooperation of the western provinces, and, in some cases, on a national basis, so it is possible. I certainly encourage the spirit of cooperation in terms of finding those things of mutual interest and concern to all Canadian citizens, and trying to develop problem-solving approaches on a non-partisan basis rather than drifting apart on issues for the sake of politics.

I note that the Premier did not mention federal funds for subsidy to the British Columbia ferry system. I certainly hope that is one of the things which he will push for in his continuing dialogue with the federal government. I hope the Premier will, in the spirit of cooperation which he apparently has with the four western provinces, elicit their support for a common western approach to the federal government for assistance with our ferry systems in British Columbia, which are an extension of highways, and which is recognized in the Atlantic provinces and should also be recognized in the province of British Columbia. I hope that's something he will take into consideration and push aggressively for in months to come.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for his statement. I was delighted to see his emphasis on those things that unite us, and if legislation this session could be limited to those things, we could get out of here very quickly.

I would congratulate him on maintaining the general western common cause that has been brought together. Just looking very quickly at the communiques, the search for a means of having public ownership of railroad beds, I think, is an excellent initiative. The general insistence on maintaining provincial jurisdiction against recent federal incursions is a thing that always must be advanced by this House and other provincial governments.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Oh, they're very quiet about that.

MR. GIBSON: In the paper on economic strategy there are a number of good thoughts. I would mention in particular the insistence of the provinces — which I support — in having input into the GATT negotiations, and I hope generally pushing towards a freer trade in this province. We would support as well any quest for the best fiscal arrangements that the western provinces can get, because they aren't entirely satisfactory at the moment.

Neither the communiques nor the Premier's statement, as far as I could see, mentioned any results of the meeting with the Premier of Alberta (Hon. Mr. Lougheed) on the subject of Pacific Western Airlines. It may be that we shall hear further on that. I hope and trust that the Premier pressed British Columbia's case vigorously on that. We should make it clear we

[ Page 1279 ]

would regard any attempt to move that head office as an unfriendly act, in my opinion, and take counter-measures. It would be analogous to our purchasing Alberta Gas Trunk and moving the head office to Vancouver. I would suggest in particular that British Columbia should make it clear that there be absolutely no move until the supreme court hears the case in the fall. I trust that the Premier was vigorous in his representation to the Premier of Alberta on this point.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll try not to make this sound like the end-of-the-week motherhood speech. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would congratulate the positive, constructive approach which the Premier obviously has taken, not only in regard to the issues but in regard to the fact that if Confederation means anything, then provinces should certainly be able to build strength from the issues on which they agree, and try to find solutions on the issues where there are differences. On that theme I couldn't be more supportive or more convinced that that's the right way to go.

However, some of the issues are certainly not mentioned in the report. Frequently in debates in this House we hear that transportation and tariffs are the two outstanding reasons that British Columbia has difficulty in diversifying its economy.

While I don't for a moment suggest that the Premier could come out of his first meeting with something definite and concise in this regard, in the few years I've been in politics I'm really quite sick and tired of reading the same old guff coming out of these meetings all the time — that, of course, we've got a breakthrough because our four western provinces are working together. So while I support, in the strongest terms, the Premier's basic concept and conviction that we should work in strong cooperation among the four western provinces, I have to be frank and say that I'll be very much happier when I see action rather than words.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $88,952 — continued.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On vote 10, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things I wanted to put to the Attorney-General. I have had some communication with the Attorney-General previously regarding the problem of citizens who, in a variety of circumstances, are moved to give evidence and lay charges which are in general support of the legal system.

There was one notorious one that happened one or two years ago where a group of hunters were harassed by a big-game guide. I think to some extent the illegal use of weapons was involved in the harassment to try to discourage British Columbia citizens, hunters as it were, from exercising their full rights of access to the area designated to a big-game hunting guide. In this case the harassment was severe, extreme and certainly illegal.

The hunters in question — although the misdemeanor or whatever you would categorize it as happened in a very remote area of the province in the far north — did the right thing as citizens of the province and filed a complaint and were, of course, required to appear at court proceedings to testify. Due to appeals and due to the variety, I believe, of charges involved, they were required to travel from interior points of the province to far northern areas on a variety of occasions to testify — all, of course, without any recompense whatsoever.

The point is: in certain circumstances such as those, the cost to the citizen in seeing that justice is done becomes very, very high indeed. The personal cost becomes very high because there's no recompense for time lost from their employment. I understand there is no travel expense. Perhaps there is some accommodation expense, I'm not sure of that.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Yes there is, and they take care of the expense of bringing them up and back, too.

MR. KING: The travel expenses are covered, okay. But in any event, certainly the loss of employment time is not covered, and in many situations that can be quite significant.

Now I appreciate the difficulty of the system of justice in any way providing recompense to a witness who's appearing in a case. It could be viewed as perhaps some kind of an inducement to act at the Crown's behest, but it seems to me there are possible alternatives to the victims of violent crimes, and perhaps such an agency as that could find some compensation, could be funded by the government to offer compensation where a citizen does his legal duty and reports crimes, lays charges and is subsequently required to appear on a variety of occasions to, in effect, support the legal system of the land and make sure that justice is done.

Now it's in everyone's interest that citizens do this. In the case I cited earlier, were people able to get away with the kind of conduct the big-game guide people indulged in, that poses a threat to the rights of

[ Page 1280 ]

all citizens of this province. I think when the citizens react by seeking legal recourse and being prepared to testify and offer evidence as to what occurred, then it seems to me that they shouldn't be subjected to undue personal hardship and undue personal cost.

I understand it's somewhat delicate for the Attorney-General's department per se to provide compensation, but I wonder whether the Attorney-General has considered and discussed with cabinet, perhaps, the possibility of providing some kind of fund like the concept that's held in the victim of violent crimes fund, something of that nature, perhaps with a committee...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Discretionary?

MR. KING: Perhaps discretionary.

...perhaps with some committee to make judgments in terms of the validity and the equity as regards dispensation of those funds. This is something that, I think, could be done without great cost, really. Perhaps the demand is not all that frequent, but when it is there it is terribly important. I think it should be recognized, and I think our people should be protected.

Certainly one constituent of mine was subjected to really extreme personal hardship. He was a small business operator who operated machinery and equipment. When he was required to travel to a far northern point and spend some time there, it was not only a matter of losing his personal labour; it was also a matter of equipment lying idle and the cost of seeing that justice was done, which he should be commended for. It was an extremely high personal expense to him. In those kinds of situations, I think with some ingenuity and some willingness to recognize that kind of problem, the government can come to grips with it. I'd like to hear the Attorney-General's reaction.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the member, not only for his remarks today but for bringing the case in question to my attention. It was one that occurred during the former administration and, as you clearly indicated to the House, it is a difficult problem. You have also very clearly indicated to the House that it is the duty and responsibility of citizenship to give evidence. I have always felt that we could do better than we have done in society to see that these people are not put into hardship which, in many cases, they are. Independent organizations, as you are aware, are now taking up a great deal of the slack. In some of the union agreements there is provision for people who give evidence to receive the equivalent of their day's pay.

I'll take the matter under consideration and I wish to thank the member for the points he has raised. The interesting one is, perhaps, whether or not there could be a discretionary fund to take care of the severe situations. But I don't think we can really say, as a society in the field of administration of justice, that one will be indemnified for all costs as a result of giving evidence in a trial under subpoena. This is one of the bulwarks of democracy. It is one of the responsibilities. It's one of the prices that we have to pay for living in a democratic society.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney-General's remarks and I certainly agree that it is a duty as a citizen to ensure that the law is enforced. However, I think everyone in the House knows very well that citizens at times are dissuaded from doing the kinds of things they should do in terms of unholding the law. I think everyone is familiar with stories that have spread across the North American continent in recent years about citizens standing back in the face of crimes being conducted before their very eyes simply because they did not want to become involved, whether it were beatings, muggings, rapes and so on. The cost and the fear of getting involved dissuaded a number of people, and that is a dangerous trend in society. It's one that I am sure we would not want to encourage in this province. It's somewhat different in terms of what I am talking about.

I think the Attorney-General will recognize that when an individual meets the kind of personal penalty, one might say, that my constituent did, and where he is in a small village — in fact, a number of people were involved, one from Nakusp, and one from Trail — then that story becomes pretty well known around that territory. The consequence may well be that when fellow citizens see the very high cost that their neighbours were subjected to for doing the right thing and fulfilling their obligations as citizens, they themselves might be a good deal more reticent in terms of following suit and doing the proper thing also in the future.

I think we have a duty not only to expect that citizens will do the right thing, but also to try to provide guidelines to give assistance which will ensure they are not subjected to unusually difficult circumstances in terms of living up to those obligations. I wouldn't say cruel and unusual punishment have been concepts developed on the basis of that very phrase of late. It just indicates that concepts of law, the needs of society, are constantly changing. I think, in today's society, the case which I have outlined is one that should be recognized by the Crown, and some provision, as I say, with ingenuity and a bit of willingness to recognize the problem, could really not only assuage hardship to individuals but guarantee that in the future the price for seeing that justice is done will not be beyond any citizen of the province.

[ Page 1281 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to touch on a few of the more important general issues that come under the Attorney-General's department, and yet try not to be repetitious of many of the points that have already been made.

I do believe that if there is one department that has more opportunity to correct some of the injustices that are suffered by the women in our society, it would have to be the Attorney-General's department. I know there are many other issues in the Departments of Health and of Human Resources, where changes are overdue, but I think in any modern society the leadership has to come from the Attorney-General's department in the form of legislation of various kinds which shows a sense of conviction by that department and that government that there are many changes required in the law relating to women.

Again, I would refer to the report of the Attorney-General's department, which makes it very plain that the Attorney-General is a somewhat unique member of cabinet. Because he is the upholder of justice and dedicated to providing equality before the law for all citizens, he has a higher challenge than any other cabinet minister to rise above political commitments, even although, as a member elected under a party label, he, like the rest of us, has a loyalty and obligation to the party he represents.

The point is well made, I think, in the report of the Attorney-General's department, that there has to be a pre-eminent commitment to justice for all the people of the province, regardless of which particular party the Attorney-General happens to be representing. I know the Attorney-General is well aware of this, and I think many of his responses already in this debate have made that very clear.

So the few comments I want to make relate to that first basic premise, that we're not here, as the minister said last night, to score political points; we're here to try as 55 supposedly enlightened individuals — I almost used the word "intelligent" for a moment there — to put forward constructive ideas and try to build a better system of justice for everyone.

I think women and members of the Indian race are two groups that are highly discriminated against, and I hope that this government, in the next three or four years of its regime, will bring about some of the enterprising and innovative legislation to deal with some of these problems.

The first matter that really concerns me is, as yet, a lack of defined policy as to how the minister will deal with the financial restrictions of legal aid. Because I have discussed this with some of my colleagues in the legal profession and they tell me that as soon as this kind of system is cut back the first people to suffer are the underprivileged.

Since many cases involve matrimonial and family problems, divorce problems, wife-beating, et cetera, it is the opinion of several of the lawyers I've talked with that the first group in society that is going to suffer from restricted legal aid is women. Quite often the husband, because he is earning, is able to employ a lawyer. But so often the wife, or the woman concerned in the case, is unrepresented. In the minds of the practising legal men, there is no doubt that in these cases the women are often discriminated against and receive less than fair decisions from the legal proceedings.

It also, of course, often involves the custody of children and, under these circumstances, poor decisions in the court are just as likely to result, perhaps, in the woman being on welfare or further family disputes, and often wrong decisions, I understand, lead to considerable trouble in regaining custody of children.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, if the whole concept of legal aid means anything at all, it means that it should be available to those persons who, for financial reasons, would otherwise not be represented by legal counsel.

The Liberal leader yesterday raised the question of how the Attorney-General felt the financial restrictions should be viewed in relation to those cases that will still receive legal aid. I know that there was a conference of lawyers at Harrison Hot Springs not so long ago, and Judge Bewley, I believe, made some very scathing and negative comments about the abuse of legal aid. Apparently the British Columbia journal — I believe it's called The Advocate, that is printed by the Law Society of British Columbia — doesn't seem quite to agree with the fact that, although there may be, as indeed there are, certain abuses, legal aid as such is a much desired and very basic requirement in British Columbia.

I'd like to quote just one sentence from The Advocate, which states: "We must not overreact to all these mournful bombinations". I'm not sure what that word means, actually. "Bombinations" — that must be a legal word, or does it mean abomination?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It must have been a Victoria lawyer who wrote that. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the key sentence is this:

"In all this adverse publicity it is vital to remember what is the purpose of legal aid. It is to provide the opportunity of a defence to poor people who cannot afford lawyers, so that a defence will be available to rich and poor alike, thus attempting to assure that everybody is equal before the law. It is the least a civilized community can do in justice to its citizenry."

That would seem to me to be the guiding principle, and yet from the minister's comments and from other comments I've read in the press by others

[ Page 1282 ]

involved in the legal aid issue, there seems to be a feeling that the money that is available will be provided to those who are facing the most serious charges. I think that is completely wrong.

Now I may not be accurate in stating that this is what will happen, because I gather the nature of the situation is fluid at the moment, and until different regions of the province become clearer as to what money will be available, these hard decisions have not yet been made. But I detect a trend in comments I have read, and from the kind of concern of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) yesterday, that there will be a tendency not to relate, as was the original intent, the help to those most in financial need, but to those who, if found guilty, would face a more severe sentence.

The reason I make the early point about the discrimination against women is that in many of the cases where legal aid — or where, rather, representation of the woman in the case — has tremendous ramifications in relation to the family and the marriage and the children, the sentence or the decision on the face of the issue might not be severe, but the social and family impact can be very severe. I don't personally feel, if decisions are to be made in relation to the seriousness of the charge, that that completely denies the basic purpose of legal aid.

Of course, the critical comments that I refer to are based on the fact that even certain lawyers are abusing legal aid, and in many cases where a more appropriate plea would be "guilty" the lawyer advises the client to plead "not guilty" so that the case can go to trial. The implication, if not the accusation, is that it is done for the financial gain of the lawyer.

On the other hand, I read that the legal aid is $100 a day — and the deputy minister looks a little puzzled. I may have the wrong figure, but this is what I am reading from. The other side of the argument is that a lawyer will not really flourish very well in the present time of inflation and high overhead costs at $100 a day as a legal aid lawyer.

So like any progressive system that is being developed to try and solve the very difficult problem of justice for all, there are bound to be problems. You can't satisfy everybody, and I suppose, as the minister said the other day, there never will be enough money to provide all the legal aid that might justifiably be necessary.

I don't know how often I've said in this House there will never be all the money to do all the things for health care in this province that we would like to see, so what really is so important is that we try to discriminate — and I use that word in, I hope, the best sense — use a discriminating sense of the real purpose of legal aid when we have to provide it to some and not to others.

I just finish on this note by saying that I hope it will not be decided on the severity of the offence or the likely severity of the sentence, but on justifying the circumstances financially in regard to the person seeking legal aid.

I also read back in January that Chief Justice Nemetz had made the statement that there was need for more of the court reporters, clerks and people in the court system. At that time the report was that there were 46 administrative vacancies in the Vancouver court system — I'm quoting from a report of January 30.

Chief Justice Nemetz also mentioned at that time the need for more judges dealing with drug-trafficking offences, and on that point I think it is again fair to congratulate the efforts of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit. I would like to say how very revealing and educational it is to read-'-the second annual report of the.... At least, it's not the annual report; I guess it is the second report of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit.

I am a little disturbed, Mr. Chairman, that one of the consequences of their success seems to be that quite naturally more individuals are appearing in court on drug charges. In some of these cases where the individuals are fairly high in the hierarchy of the drug scene we have unavoidably long trials. Now people are getting all upset in society because of the cost of these trials and the cost of defence and the use of legal aid lawyers to defend drug traffickers. I just have to say, Mr. Chairman, that really society can't have it both ways.

For years, quite justifiably, the people of British Columbia have been demanding more effective action against drug traffickers. The Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit was set up to try and increase the incidence of convictions of these very people, but the actual legal process involved in doing it has created an increase in trials and an increase, perhaps, in the length of these trials. But as far as I can see, you just can't have your cake and eat it as well. If you want to try and find these offenders and give them the same access to justice in the courts, then it is going to involve cost and time.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General a specific question on that point. I hope he's not preoccupied with other....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry. I didn't hear your last point.

MR. WALLACE: I was making the point that I don't see how society can have it both ways, that if they want to catch more drug offenders the drug offenders are entitled to their day in court like anyone else. If it happens to take longer than other offences, so be it. The specific question is — it's not my question, it's from nobody less than the chief justice of the province who stated that there should be more judges appointed to deal with the increasing

[ Page 1283 ]

number of drug-trafficking offences. When the minister responds I would be interested to know if, in fact, he has that in mind.

That leads into the whole question of wiretapping. I understand that one of the court cases that is still pending involved 1,000 hours of taped telephone conversation. I really don't imagine it would make too much difference if it was 1,000 or 2,000 but once again it makes the point that it is only wiretapping evidence that has made some of these arrests possible, as I understand it from press reports.

So once again, society wants a more sophisticated police approach — an investigative approach to the very serious drug problems and trafficking in drugs. If you want to find the offender and you want to put him behind bars and one of the sophisticated devices happens to be wiretapping, then the consequences of a longer court trial is just something that we have to face as society.

I hear, Mr. Chairman, the other day that we also have a problem in regard to wiretapping evidence. I'd like the minister's answer on this one. I gather that technically the case has been put that unless an attorney of the federal Department of Justice makes the initial application to wiretap, the validity of the wiretapping evidence can be questioned in court.

I realize that this is technically very much a technical legal point, but I think it would be very important that if the investigative units and the police spend days and weeks and months finally bringing an accused person to trial based on wiretapping evidence and then the evidence is thrown out of court because the application was not made in a proper manner — application for permission to wiretap — then this would be a tremendous waste of public money. I understand that there has been at least one case — I'm not sure if it has been resolved. I think Justice...was the judge involved where he was asked to reject the wiretapping evidence....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is this in front of the court now?

MR. WALLACE: No, I think he made the decision that, in fact, the application to wiretap had not been properly done in accordance with the law.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, Mr. Member. I didn't wish to interrupt you but if it's a matter in front of the court I would prefer you not to refer to it. If it's a matter that's been decided, fine and dandy.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I'm not certain of its precise state at the moment so I will talk in general terms, the general terms being that permission, as the minister has pointed out in his recent report the other day, to wiretap comes under the federal legislation. But I understand that provincial attorneys have applied for permission to wiretap, have been given that permission and have subsequently wanted to use evidence. There is some question about the technical validity of the evidence since, on the suggestion that any application should involve an attorney of the federal Department of Justice, and possibly both a federal and a provincial attorney.

The only point I'm trying to make is that if we go through all this business of weeks and months of investigation and you finally nail one of these offenders and you get him into court, then on a technical point the evidence is not good, we've spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to no avail.

I listened with great interest last night to the debate on the importance of rape as an increasingly frequent crime in our society and I just want to, in a very brief way, say that I sympathize with the comments that were made and I want to state my appreciation of the Attorney-General's commitment to find more money for the rape-relief centres.

I think one or two points were missed in the debate last night which might put it a little more in balance. I detected a very negative note as though we really were still living in the dark ages. I'm just as convinced as everybody else in this House that we have a long way to go. I'm the last person to be contented with the current performance of the federal Liberal government.

To be fair, I think we should make in this debate about rape and rape relief and the role of law enforcement.... The federal government as recently as last week passed amendments to the...at least they passed what was called the Criminal Law Amendment Act. This has substantially changed and corrected some of the very serious defects of the pre-existing law and is much.... For example, you cannot publish the identity of the rape victim after this legislation was passed. In the trial the defending lawyer no longer has the right to cross-examine the victim about her past conduct and general character. Beyond even that, the old-fashioned approach to rape that there had to be corroborating evidence by another witness, has also been abandoned and the kind of evidence that is produced is to be regarded in the same light as any other trial. In other words, there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in light of some of the very reasonable concerns that were expressed last night about the unfair treatment of the rape victim, at last we are making some, albeit overdue and perhaps slow, progress in the legal field. But I would have to give the federal Liberals that much credit at least. They've responded to some of these points that have quite legitimately been raised in this House and elsewhere and the attitude to....

[ Page 1284 ]

Perhaps for many years, as the Attorney-General says.

One of the points that I think might have been overlooked last night too in trying to determine how dollars might be spent through the use of rape-relief centres is the fact that if the problem is dealt with more adequately at the time it occurs there are many costs that are avoided further down the road. I'm thinking particularly of the follow-up medical management of rape victims. As it was pointed out in the debate last night, many of these victims suffer a very substantial degree of emotional trauma which persists for some considerable time, which very often involves a substantial demand on the services of the family physician and psychiatrists and others.

Of course that is something, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't show up clearly as a dollar cost. But not too long ago in the budget speech we were told about the dramatic increase in the costs of medicare, and so many of the victims of rape, as I mentioned, subsequently require a fair amount of family physician and psychiatric attention, the costs of which are all just included in the total bill for medicare. Whereas if sympathetic kind of support is available to the victim at the time of the offence and immediately thereafter, it seems to me that this is a preventive kind of service which shouldn't just be measured in terms of the budget, the absolute number of dollars made available to rape-relief centres. It should be viewed as a measure which prevents further cost to the health services of the province by providing help and support and sympathy at a time when it is most needed.

Many of these other points I think are very important, and from the medical point of view I certainly appreciate the suggestions put forward by the Status of Women that hospitals should try to have at least one private room or some separate room available for a person awaiting investigation and examination at a hospital emergency department. I can't think of anything more negative in its effects on a woman than sitting in a large waiting room in a large general hospital, with people coming out and in with cuts and wounds, broken limbs and heart attacks. Quite often there is inevitably a wait since one can't always find a physician right away. I think some measure of privacy is something that hospitals might consider, and it would be an initiative showing that this whole question of rape isn't just a question of law; it involves all arms of community services — the physician, the Human Resources department, involves education and a vast array of other arms of community services.

In that regard there's also another point where I appreciate the minister's response last night — that perhaps the sharing of costs would be very appropriate if it involved Health, Human Resources and Education, because a great deal of the hardship that rape victims have suffered in the past could perhaps have been reduced or minimized if we had all taken more of a leadership role and educated the public and our young people, as they grow up, about some of the facts rather than the myths that we've heard a great deal about.

The concept of having female physicians available, either on contract to police departments or on a fee-for-service basis, surely has to be one of the most obvious and reasonable proposals that anyone could put forward.

I was just wanting to touch briefly on the other discriminated groups that I feel the Attorney-General should be saying something about, and that's the high incidence of Indians in our jails. I've seen various figures published, but it seems to average around 70 per cent of all the people in our jails are members of the Indian race.

I, again, don't suggest that any particular government can solve that overnight, because, as the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) pointed out so eloquently last night, we spend a lot of our time at the back end of the problem, dealing with the consequences of pre-existing conditions. If unemployment is high among any group in society, and poverty is high, then one can almost predict with certainty that their involvement with the law will be higher than other groups who are living in a greater degree of affluence. So I realize that the pre-existing social conditions have a great deal to do with the end result. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General's report does show some optimism. I think it's on page 40 that it talks about native programmes and the attempt to involve, on a wider basis, court workers and others who themselves are native Indians, and advising and assisting those that come in conflict with the law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have 2 minutes, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you. I want to finish on one note, at the moment, as to the minister's, I think, unfortunate attitude toward hockey violence. I think the minister's statement that it should be settled by the officials in the hockey leagues is just great — if it worked. But it's not working when we have to see this kind of headline: "They're Going to Have to Kill Someone," meaning that until somebody gets killed on the ice there will be no real substantial measure taken to control hockey violence.

Now I love watching hockey, as much as any converted Scotsman could, but sometimes to watch the kind of fight that erupts on the arena...and not just a moment of passion, Mr. Chairman. I've seen, as we've all seen, one individual first pulling another person's jersey over his head. Then long after the initial moment of real anger has passed, he's still pounding away at that other person's head. This, Mr.

[ Page 1285 ]

Chairman, goes far beyond any justification at all.

To say that we'd better leave the hockey officials to settle their own difficulties.... It isn't even enough to eject somebody from the game. As the Attorney-General said, that is not enough. If I'm misquoting the Attorney-General, I'm sure he'll correct me.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, you're not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, just one concluding statement; your time has expired.

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it's such an important issue that I'll deal with it at a later time.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'd like to thank the member for his very valuable contribution this morning.

Concerning legal aid, I would again draw to the attention of the hon. member the remarks that I did make in a fairly extensive answer to a question during question period back on April 1. But I think it's useful for the members of the House to realize where the province of British Columbia, under three administrations, has gone vis-à-vis legal aid: in 1970, $221,000 was spent; the next year, $594,000; in 1972, $858,000; 1973, $1,161,000; 1974, $1,850,000; then in 1975, a considerable increase to $3.737 million. So you see, from 1970 we have moved, as a province, from $220,000 to $3.7 million. Now the Legal Services Commission — which I really would think could be discussed under that vote, but it's raised and I'll be happy to refer to it — under the Legal Services Commission there is this year a vote of $7 million.

Essentially that money is for legal aid — the whole amount of money, however you look at it. The bulk of it — about $5.1 million — is for the Legal Aid Society. Native court workers, which is the legal-aid programme: $450,000. Native programmes: $268,000. Information, education and training, which is preventative medicine in the sense of legal aid: $255,000. Community law offices: $725,300. Commissioners and administration: $201,700. Apart from that, the Law Foundation, hopefully, will be putting in a figure of approximately half a million dollars. So you can have comfort in this, Mr. Member, that we have moved as a province from $220,000 to about $7.5 million in the space of six years. I think that's progress. I really do.

I'd also like to mention something about the federal contribution. According to the figures I've been given, $54 million-odd was spent in legal aid in Canada last year. The federal contribution was $10 million. The per capita contribution of the federal government to British Columbia, under the proposed agreement — which I've informed the members is not finished.... I cannot see that figure changing. That's been pretty clearly emphasized. I tend to think that figure's not negotiable save and except I hope that they will be advancing some assistance to administration. That has been indicated, and we're working on that, trying to get a better deal for people in B.C. The 75 cents per capita is what the federal government is contributing, and yet our cost in B.C. is roughly $3 per capita. So unless my arithmetic is pretty bad the federal government is paying 25 per cent legal aid, and the province is paying 75 per cent.

Mr. Member, I'm going to have to reiterate a point that I've made before, and it's not going to be palatable to everybody: we cannot, under the priorities that we have today, have completely open-ended legal aid. I've stressed that, and that's a fact of life. We're just going to have to live with it. It's not only British Columbia; it's the federal government and other provinces that are also looking at what specific offences have to be defended vis-a-vis the legal aid process, according to the federal agreement, and a new look has been taken at that.

I mentioned last night — I think I've said this two or three times and I don't wish to take the time of the House repeating it — that there are different schools of thought. It may take a couple of years or three or four years to get this thing properly ironed out, but should we definitely go ahead and give legal aid for repeaters? There are some people in society, as we all know, who have never ever had any conflict with the law. There are other people who have repetitious conflicts with the law, and the people who've been in front of the court six or seven or eight times. Maybe he should learn his lesson. And I don't think that's bad logic. I don't think that's illogical.

Also, should we be giving legal aid in every kind of a case? Should legal aid be given in the case of impaired driving? We talked about drinking-driving last night and it was unanimous agreement within the House that the thing is still off the rails, We've only been in here for three months — this hasn't happened overnight, you know. Would it be a fair caveat to tell the public in B.C.: "If you are caught drinking in the road, my friend, don't come to the public purse for legal aid."? I see there's some support for that. Maybe that's a good point.

Now dealing with the hirings, I'm very happy to inform the members the court services — clerks, court reporters, sheriffs, and so on.... I don't want to miss anybody who goes through the litany of the people involved, but requisitions are out for 68 people more. We've done that in February and I think that's an accomplishment. I think the government should be commended for that.

Concerning the wiretapping point you raised, the officials of our department in the field of criminal jurisprudence, and those in the federal government and in all of the departments of the Attorney-General

[ Page 1286 ]

across the province, are aware of the problems you have raised. It's a very valid one and it is one that's going to be looked at and, hopefully, a resolution will be coming downstream before too very long. We're not unaware of the point, but I do thank the member very much for again bringing it to my attention, and I'm most hopeful that this will be one of the items that will be on the agenda when the provincial Attorneys-General and the Minister of Justice meet in British Columbia later on in June.

Hockey? The instructions of the Department of the Attorney-General have not altered under the new government. They're the same as they were under the former government, and the instructions are that the law is to be enforced. If there are transgressions of the law on the rink, the law will be enforced.

I really and truly would like to say a couple of things about this because it's distressed me considerably. I would welcome, again, all members to take a look at the very fine report that was prepared by Mr. McMurtry, who is the brother of the Attorney-General of Ontario. It is a first-class report. It's good reading. It really is. He had a very interesting commission, saw a number of witnesses, and he certainly came out with the hard points. It's been ignored, and I continue to feel it's a sad thing in a contemporary society when you have to call upon police and prosecutors to monitor a sport. I think that's rotten. I think that's just a criticism of our society. Those people should be able to clean their own house, but, if they're not going to clean their own house, society has to respond. It's appalling, in my view, for that sport to put the governments of this country into this kind of position.

Now I again feel, from some knowledge of athletics, although I didn't play too much hockey as a kid — I did a little — I still feel that had they brought in the one rule that if you fight you are out of the game, period, that would be a great improvement. If we then start building up the fines, we are not going to have to have police and prosecutors at games. We're going to have to do that.

God damn it, we're sick, if you'll pardon my bad language. I withdraw. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: As a society, we are, Mr. Chairman. It's just not proper. I read Bobby Hull's remark a couple of days ago and I thoroughly agree with what he said. I read Mr. Campbell's remarks a few days ago and I thoroughly disagree with what he said.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I want to clarify the comments I made about legal aid. I never talked for a moment about repeaters, and I don't want to leave any impression at all that I favour the idea of people....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, I know you didn't say that, but I just want to get it on the record, very clearly, that what I am talking about is the fact that it has been made plain.... I agree with the minister that money doesn't grow on trees, but it's been made plain that everybody who should qualify for legal aid will not be able to get it. That's the point. The point I'm making, very clearly, is that there have been suggestions.... There was one statement in the press that the Attorney-General had been informed by the legal-aid people that the primary option would be to shut off the legal aid in family matters.

Now I just want the Attorney-General to tell me, and tell the House: is that fact or is the report I am reading from inaccurate? I think that if there isn't enough money to cover all the needs of legal aid, then I think it would be very wrong if the first particular section of society to be penalized were families, or women in particular, for the reasons I outlined in my comments. The husband is earning a wage; the woman can't afford a lawyer. If there isn't legal aid available, not only is it an injustice to the woman concerned but, as I say, it leads to all kinds of other problems down the road affecting property, custody of children and a lot of other things. I am referring to advice and comments I have had from practising members of the legal profession who tell me this will be one of the very direct and early consequences if legal aid, basically, is removed or drastically cut back in relation to cases in court involving the family. Far be it from me to suggest that Jack Wasserman is any kind of prophet or legal expert but, nevertheless, I would like a comment, with respect, and then I'll shut up for the rest of the day if necessary.

But, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether or not the Attorney-General has received any report from persons in the legal-aid system suggesting that the first option should be to shut off the legal aid or reduce legal aid in dealing with family matters and close down the legal aid head office. The statement is made in the Wasserman column of April 21 that if the legal-aid service is continued on its present scale, it will be completely broke by October 30. Now that's a specific assertion. Granted, we don't know the final financial arrangement with the federal government, but supposing the minister is correct that they are not going to increase their share, could he tell us the answers to these two questions: has there been any suggestion that the first area of restriction should be in family law, family court cases, and, secondly, is it true that the fund would be gone by October 30 if all the present applicants continued to receive legal aid regardless of the nature of the offences?

[ Page 1287 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a suggestion that has been made and that's the reason we are attempting to scrounge for some more dollars, but maybe not necessarily through the government.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, under the Attorney-General's department comes the liquor administration branch, and, on behalf of the consumers of this province, I would like to bring up a few points that I think are worthwhile noting, specifically to do with the consumption of wine in this province.

We all appreciate that once having consumed wine, one shouldn't drive an automobile. But are we in fact consuming wine? I would refer to Alexis Lichine's Encyclopedia of Wines and Spirits, which is the world-wide renowned authority on wines, and, just very briefly, it does have a definition in here. I think if we went to this definition we could all probably be better informed.

"Wine comes from the fermentation of grapes. Dandelions, parsnips and elderberries can be made to yield a homemade wine, but properly wine comes from grapes and nothing else."

On that basis, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, I would put that there is no wine produced in this province, as defined by the world encyclopedia. (Laughter.) That is to say, Mr. Chairman, that what in fact we have is a product that has some grape content, but is not of grape content only.

We know that there are several pressure groups in this province that represent the wine industry. As a matter of fact, there are a total of 171 persons employed in the wine industry in the province — that is to say, in the wine-processing industry. The wine-processing industry is owned in fact by several multinational corporations, the names of which are.... I guess it's sort of interesting. I'd like to bring them up. Standard Brands — you know, they make Dr. Ballards and they also make another famous food product that I guess we're well aware of. Rothmans and Labatts are other people involved in the wine-making industry in this province. They don't have a big political lobby but the grape producers do, because the grape producers are their spokesmen. They're the little people. I suggest to you, Mr. Attorney-General, through the Chairman, that the consumer of this province is the one who suffers greatly at the hands of your department.

Specifically, you know, the mention is of the $3 price of a bottle of wine. Anything above $3 is a chateau wine and therefore we expect that that can't be produced in this province. Anything below $3, well, is just the regular standard bingo and we can compete with that. That's really not the case. You know, in other jurisdictions they use a different base level. I think British Columbia has set the $3 wine limit at the price the wineries can make a profit. However, several of the members of this House have constituencies bordering on our neighbouring province, where there is a considerably different price structure. The members for Kootenay and Columbia River, North Peace and South Peace, and I presume also, Fort George, must find a great number of their constituents travelling to Alberta to procure, not only good wines, but wines....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It's illegal. It's illegal.

MR. ROGERS: I appreciate it's illegal, Mr. Member. I would not want to encourage anyone to break the law, but I'm led to believe that it has happened in the past.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you buy your suits in Calgary.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The first member for Vancouver South has the floor. Please continue.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, one need only take a tour of one of the liquor administration branch's outlets in the province of British Columbia to see that, in fact, the locally produced wines represent a collection of zoological garden samples rather than genuine wines. The names of some of the wines alone are enough to give one a terribly splitting headache, let alone consuming the product inside.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): That's because you drink too much. You're supposed to sip it.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: There goes leatherlungs; working on his favourite project again.

Mr. Chairman, through you, of course, to the Attorney-General, the really popular wines of the world, the Zinfandel and the Cabernet-Savignon and the Bordeaux and the Beaujolais — and I guess I should mention the Chablis and the Burgundies as well — are not available to the average consumer in this province. Why should we pay...?

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: No, I missed that. Why should we pay the same price for a decent bottle of wine as we pay for a good bottle of Scotch whisky? It is

[ Page 1288 ]

absolutely patently absurd. It is merely because of this pressure group, and I find it most difficult to justify to my constituents that a small group of people who are, in fact, head-officed in foreign countries, or in Quebec — which in fact may be the same thing — should control the palates of the people of this province. Now many people will tell you that, in fact, the product produced here is a great product. It's certainly not a grape product.

When one considers that in the heart of the grape-growing area in Port Moody, which, as you know, is right in the area where you expect all the finest wines to be grown, there exists a very large winery.... While that winery has 40 per cent of the British Columbia market, it only buys 15 per cent of the grapes. So there's no correlation at all between the purchase of grapes and the volume of wine. They're not a winery; they're a chemical reproducer. They're a chemical reproducer with a locked-in market. You know, you said something about automobile dealers. If we had an automobile marketing board here, these guys could really be happy.

We have a complete and utter nonsense situation that's been perpetrated on the public over the years, and as I sit in my corner here, Mr. Chairman, I see this door and I see this lovely carving on the door. The carving reminds me of Bacchus as he has tested a B.C. wine. When I ask all of you sometimes to come out through the back door and observe, that is about the right sort of image that one would portray from someone having consumed British Columbia wine.

There has been some....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! Order!

MR. ROGERS: Yes, I wish you would order some B.C. wines. (Laughter.)

There has been some suggestion made in the past that wines coming in from outside of the province of British Columbia are, in effect, dumped into the province of B.C. As you know, none of the wines produced in B.C. could be marketed in any other country in the world. It will be said by others who may follow me in this debate — and I trust that someone will — that in fact, the content of the grape in the province of British Columbia isn't suitable for making wine. Therefore, they have to add various artificial agents. But in fact 70 to 80 per cent of every grape is water. There are several other products down there — between 12 and 27 per cent of every grape is sugar. If you were to add one grape to the barrel and therefore add enough water and sugar and throw in a little yeast, you can say yes, in fact, we have wine. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is, in fact, what happens.

Interjections.

MR. ROGERS: Yes, I hope so. Yes.

Interjections.

MR. ROGERS: I haven't.... Mr. Chairman, this wonderful encyclopaedia also has a chapter on Canada. It won't take me long to read it, I can assure you. It says: "The vineyards of Canada are mainly in the Niagara peninsula of southern Ontario and in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, but the first of these regions is by far the most popular.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Order! Order! Equal time! Equal time! (Laughter.)

MR. ROGERS: That is the last reference that the world's No. 1 authority has to make about the Okanagan Valley, and I should hope so. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: You'll have your chance, Mr. Member from the Bingo Belt. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, my final reference from this manual would be the world's production of wines. This is for the last year that all the countries of the world got together and agreed on this. In imperial gallons, Italy comes first with 1.454 billion et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Down here below such eminently famous wine-growing countries as Morocco, Japan, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland — yes, I thought they were a watch outfit. Anyway, below all of those, way down here, number 27 on the list, is Canada with 8 million gallons of wine. So we really aren't in the business.

When you look at the listings of the liquor administration branch and you find that there are 270-odd chemically treated things with the label "wine".... In France, by the way, Mr. Attorney-General, you would be in the slammer for having marketed those things (laughter) because, as you know, it is against the law to even market in Europe denatured alcohol and call it wine. So I would suggest, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General.... I know he looks favourably on this subject anyway so.... (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw! (Laughter.)

MR. ROGERS: I would suggest that we look at this.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You'd better take him into cabinet to protect yourself. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

[ Page 1289 ]

The first member for Vancouver South.

MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the administration of tourism.... When we discuss tourism one of the things we will discuss is to try to secure convention business for the province of British Columbia. We have the lovely mountains and the sea and we have fine restaurants. Imagine asking people to come to British Columbia and go out and dine in one of our fine restaurants and then subjecting them to the local product.

If we really want to be competitive in the convention business, we have to obviously take a very serious look at greatly extending our variety and choice of wines. When one looks at the proliferation of Greek restaurants in this province, they are expanding exponentially — that's a $5-word, Mr. Member — one will find that we, in fact, only have, I think, two Greek wines available. When one considers the number of Greek restaurants, that is nothing short of absolutely disgraceful. One Greek brandy and only two ouzos.

Democracy started in Greece; I think we ought to give them credit for something. I think perhaps we should at least increase the listings of Greek wines by a factor of 10.

One recognizes the fact that we were visited by a group from the wine-producing area — timing which is just absolutely excellent. I would suggest that if the consumers of wine in this province could somehow tell, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, what they think of British Columbia products, you would see a deluge of mail like the leg-hold trap never had. (Laughter.) I wish they would do that.

On that Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) wants to get up and tell me about the fine paint remover or whatever it is they make up there. I will be delighted to sit and take my place and listen. Thank you.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the member for Boundary-Similkameen, but I did manage to beat him on his feet.

I was very interested in the discourse on the grape production in British Columbia as related to the Liquor Control Board. It is interesting to note that the grape producers of British Columbia have been introducing some new brands into B.C. in the past few years. They are now growing some brands of grapes that I would like to say to the member are going to, I'm sure, improve the quality of British Columbia wines very much. The sugar content produced....

MR. WALLACE: You're going to get into trouble if you've got him on your standard. (Laughter.)

Yes, that really bothers me. I'll have to retract that remark, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to point out that last year the native Indian co-op in the Okanagan produced a tremendous amount of grapes with a very high sugar content.

I enjoyed his speech very much, but the one thing that the member for Vancouver South did not mention.... He mentioned things that go into wine; he mentioned grapes and dandelions and so on, but the one thing he didn't mention was sugar, and that surprised me.

I didn't really intend to speak about the Liquor Control Commission, Mr. Chairman, and I don't pretend to be an authority on the Department of the Attorney-General, or to be particularly knowledgeable about it or to have a particularly tremendous grasp of the estimates for the Attorney-General's department. But I feel that as a member of the female species I could not stay in my seat while the Attorney-General's estimates were up because I do feel that as a woman I must speak out on behalf of some of the problems of women, many of which fall within the field of the Department of the Attorney-General.

I think the one point that has come home to me on many occasions is women's position in the eyes of the law, relative to property and property settlements. There is just no equality in the eyes of the law. I'm sure that the hon. Attorney-General is far more familiar with the Berger report than I am, but I would certainly recommend to him the implementation of the points raised in the Berger commission relative to family and children's law.

I would also like to commend to him another recommendation of the Berger report regarding the change-of-name legislation. This may seem to be a small thing, but it is very important to a great many of the women in our society. I think that the Attorney-General would do well to consider Justice Berger's recommendation in regard to the change of name.

Another point that I would like to raise is the position of illegitimate children within society....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, the Children's Act.

The position of illegitimate children in society is putting a black mark against many members of our society, through no fault of theirs. I would certainly urge the Attorney-General to take action on the status of illegitimate children.

Another point I would like to raise, relative to women, is the position of women in prison. This is a distressful situation. We have a lot of distressful situations in prison; prison is not a glamorous place to

[ Page 1290 ]

be — that of course, is a natural thing. I would ask the minister to consider some of the problems that are facing women in prison. There are special, particular problems related to women who are incarcerated. I would urge the Attorney-General to investigate and to recommend corrections, to introduce corrections to the situation that women find themselves in in prison.

I have read with great interest the report that came out from the Attorney-General's department on a future for women. I only want to refer to one particular section of it, and it's the section that interests me very greatly because it's a section with which I have been involved during the years in the business world — that is, the advancement of women and the training of women.

On page 28 of this report there is a table which shows the training opportunities that have been made available to women in the field of executive development in both the government as a whole and in the Department of the Attorney-General over the past three years.

In executive development in 1973 there were absolutely no females trained for advancement in government, while 32 males received that kind of training. In the Department of the Attorney-General there were only two males, but we'll just deal with the government department here because it's the total figures.

In 1974 two females received executive development training, while 29 males received that kind of training. In 1975 only four females participated in executive development training courses, as compared to 26 males.

I suggest that this does point to discrimination, because that means that one woman and seven men attended executive development training programmes in the Attorney-General's office, and 38.6 per cent of the department is female, so the proportion is just not correct. It suggests a lack of training of clerical women to equip themselves for a transfer into a more advanced career job. I would urge the Attorney-General, within his own department, to move to train more women to accept executive positions.

I would also like to speak to this minister about the native people. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) dealt with it, but the native person has a particular problem in the eyes of the law, or in his own eyes, really. I have heard native people say that when an Indian is charged under the white man's law he doesn't understand, and he takes the attitude that because he is charged he is guilty, so therefore he raises no defence.

You know, this is one of the places where we really need native people working in the field. Now I know, I recognize, there have been some advancements made in that direction, but I would urge the Attorney-General to move as quickly as he can to provide the kind of assistance that the native people require to give them equality before the courts of this province. That kind of assistance is going to come and, in my opinion, the most important way it can be advanced is by training natives to act on behalf of other natives in trouble with the law.

I would just like to speak briefly about — and it has been mentioned in relation to the hockey situation — the attitude that society has developed towards the law. Very unfortunately we seem to have come to a point where we feel that the crime is not in the commission, but the crime is in the getting caught. This is an unfortunate situation and it makes it all the more difficult for the Department of the Attorney-General to function.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sometimes it happens even in this House. (Laughter.)

MRS. WALLACE: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

I could think of an example — you know, probably we all cheat on our income tax....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not the cheating, it's only if we get caught that we consider it wrong. This is something that is becoming more and more ingrained in society today.

When we drive and we go down the highway, we see a speed limit — it's not the fact that we drive 60 instead of 55 that is wrong in our minds. The crime is if an RCMP car happens to buzz up behind us, or if there's a ghost car out there. This is a very unfortunate attitude that has developed in society. It is, as I say, one of the things that makes it even more difficult for the Attorney-General's department.

This is one of the reasons why education is so important as a part of the whole legal concept. You can't isolate education from the correction or the enforcement of law, and it must start with the juvenile section of society.

I'm concerned, and I have a particular concern because there is a local instance, Mr. Attorney-General, where we have in the Cowichan Valley an alternate school in operation. This school is providing a very valuable service within the Cowichan Valley because it is providing an alternate system of education where we are training young people who have dropped out of the school system. I understand that it is one of two schools within the province that was formerly funded in part by your department. I understand that this funding is being withdrawn.

I would urge you, Mr. Attorney-General, to check into this because I would suggest that it is an old saying, but very true: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And prevention is the cheapest kind

[ Page 1291 ]

of legal aid we can give. We must prevent. We must help train these young people to become full and worthwhile citizens, not just wait until they are afoul of the law and then, because we are so caught up in the high costs of administering that law, push them into an extended life of being a problem to society and turning into offenders against society. I would urge the minister to look into that one specific case, if no other, and to reinstate the funding to that school so it can continue to operate to keep those young people busy and to keep them a part and train them to become a part of society, train them to learn jobs, to be able to go out and get back into the job market.

I cannot stress too much the importance of having this kind of facility available. I would urge not only that he consider the one that I speak of, that I know of, but extending this kind of service as part of the legal thing. We can't isolate the legal from education, any more than we can isolate it from health. They are all part and parcel of society, and the funding must be made available for these things through whatever department. So, again, I would urge that this be carried out.

This whole process of alternate school has been proving very, very valuable throughout the province in taking your people who would otherwise be on the streets and putting them back into the educational system in a less structured sort of training. It's proving a worthwhile factor within our society and it must be continued and expanded.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would ask and urge and hope that the thrust of the Attorney-General's department — and I'm having some problems justifying that thrust as I try to find my way around through the figures in the various estimates — be aimed at prevention rather than cure. This is really the important thing about crime in the province or in the country or anywhere. Education and prevention should be the thrust, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that that is what these estimates are all about.

MR. HEWITT: I'm going to spend a little time talking about the Attorney-General's estimates, and one of the items in his department, of course, that comes under his control is that of the liquor administration. It has been dealt with and the subject of wines has been dealt with today and I was most interested in my colleague's comments about the wine industry and the grape-growing industry in the province of British Columbia, and I only thought it fair that I get up on my feet and make a few comments. We were fortunate enough yesterday in caucus to meet with the grape growers association, a number of representatives there. It was unfortunate that the member for Vancouver South was not able to attend because I hope we may have cut him off at the pass at that time.

I have passed to me a note from my hon. colleague from Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) who tells me that Andres Wines in Port Moody, in that constituency of Coquitlam, has won a number of awards, silver medals of international recognition, for the quality of the wines they produce with predominantly B.C. grapes. I must add that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on a serious matter — I believe it is, because we did have a delegation. If the member for Vancouver South, who is my hon. colleague, feels it is a lobby group or a pressure group, maybe so, but it is a well-meant effort on the part of two industries in this province, one being the grape-growing industry and the other the wine industry. The problem is that these two industries have been promoted by the B.C. government to get into the business and they're in their infancy. They're very young when you compare them to the vineyards and the wineries of Europe, but they've come a long way in a very short period of time, and I'm sure they're going to go farther. What is the aggravation that is facing this industry today? It is simply the matter of foreign wine charisma, charisma of foreign wines in the low-priced bracket.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: Somebody mentioned pseudo wine snobs. I don't think I'd use that term. Nevertheless, if you are a wine connoisseur, the value of a wine or the quality of a wine in the price range of $3 and under, or $4 and under, I don't think that's going to make all that much difference. What I am saying really is that our wines have come a long way and our wines are good, but they don't have that foreign wine charisma.

MR. LEA: Give them a choice.

MR. HEWITT: There is a choice in the liquor stores, but the aggravation right now as I see it is not the wines and not the quality, but is the problem of the fact that we have empty bins on the shelves in the wine stores. I made a little tour with my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) over to the liquor store in Nootka Court the other day — 47 empty wine bins in the imported wine field, 47 empty bins. It wasn't because we'd consumed it; it was because they were not there.

Now, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, so his department will understand somewhat the problem, at the present time as I understand it from the information I have, there are 20 labels of foreign wines under $3, 13 white wines, seven reds. Between the range of $3 to $4, there are 21 reds and 21 whites, a total of 62 labels of imported wine under $4. Why have more labels when we can't even fill the bins? As I mentioned, there were 47 empty bins in

[ Page 1292 ]

the Nootka Court liquor store. So I don't feel the problem is additional labels, Mr. Chairman. I think the problem really is the liquor distribution branch. Their problem is to get those bins filled that are there now.

Mr. Chairman, this caucus has also met with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. We were pleased to meet with that group, and their one main thrust....

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was with the Premier on a very important mission. They were unfortunately missing, but we were ably represented at that meeting. But their one main thrust was the protection of the agriculture industry in B.C. and I admire them for that thrust. I think this assembly has to deal with that problem to make sure our agriculture industry is protected.

What effect will more foreign labels have? I've told you about the foreign wine charisma, and I think mainly in that price bracket that I mentioned — $3 to $4 — it is a charisma, but the impact on the B.C. wines, although at this point unknown, could be substantial. It could be substantial because I feel, in my mind, that those wines that come in — foreign wines that come in under $3 — are "dumped" on the wine market in this province. I just cannot comprehend how those wines come in at the prices they do. One particular one from Bulgaria, I believe, comes in at $2.20 on our shelves, and that, I don't believe, is the actual cost of production for that bottle of wine.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What have you got against Bulgaria?

MR. HEWITT: I have nothing against Bulgaria, Hon. Member.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, regarding this part of this department, I have some facts on a fact sheet considering the province of Ontario and I would like to quote them: in February 1972, the Canadian portion of the wine sales — the gallon sales in Ontario — was 66 per cent. The imported wine portion of the market was 34 per cent. In February 1976, the latest figures I have, the Canadian portion of those sales was 49 per cent; the imported wines were 51 per cent. I understand that out of last year's crop, Mr. Chairman, the government had to pick up and subsidize part of the grape-growers' crop because the wineries just were not going to use it; they didn't have the market. They'd lost their share of the market.

At the present time in 1975, from a report — and I have it here — that was given to Mr. Warrens, the general manager, I guess, of the liquor distribution branch, 31.4 per cent is the present figure for sales of imported wines in B.C.; 68.6 per cent are Canadian wines. All that I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is let's keep it that way. Why are we going to jeopardize our markets? Why are we going to jeopardize our products?

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to comment in regard to what we are comparing, and I did some calculations. If you take away the bubblies — I won't refer to them the way the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) did — but when you take away the bubblies from the list of wines on the shelves, you have in the still wines under $3, 153 Canadian labels and 33 imported labels. If my calculation is right, that's 20 per cent of the market borne by imported wines, or the imported wines hold 20 per cent of the shelf space in the liquor stores on the under-$3 wine. Now that's a pretty good percentage when you're talking imported as opposed to domestic. I think there is a fair representation there, and I don't want to see the market for our grape growers and our wineries jeopardized by more foreign wines or the foreign-wine charisma.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

MR. HEWITT: Well, I'll have to talk to the Minister of Education I guess, too. I'll keep fighting.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Attorney-General: the statistics I have tell me that of foreign wine sales, 37 per cent of the purchase price after tax is taken off in the liquor branch markup. Thirty-seven per cent of the purchase price that the consumer pays leaves B.C. — leaves Canada. It goes back, of course, to the producer and to the country in which it was produced.

Domestic sales: you can say 100 per cent of that purchase price stays in Canada. Not only that, but if you take the progression of an end consumer product, you take the supporting industry; you take the income tax the industry pays; you take the income tax the employee pays; you take the fringe benefits; you take all the supporting services and industries behind the wine-making industry — you could multiply that many, many times. I don't want to see, as a citizen of B.C., as a member of this Legislature, those two industries that were promoted by the Province of British Columbia, that are working hard, working together.... I want to see them grow, prosper and become one of the best recognized wines in the world. I think they will, and I'm sure they will.

[ Page 1293 ]

Mr. Chairman, really in winding up, I've had a number of letters, of course, in my riding. We have the Indian band I think that was referred to by the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — the Indian band in Osoyoos has a tremendous vineyard. I'd say in the Okanagan Valley we have close to 50 per cent of the grape production within my riding, and I imagine there's almost that in the Premier's riding as well. Although I don't want him to get up and defend the issue, I think I have to do that. But, Mr. Chairman, I have a tremendous number of letters and telegrams from the village of Oliver and the village of Osoyoos expressing concern on this very fact.

Yes, it might as well be a lobby, and maybe I am the chairman of that lobby, but I feel it is my responsibility, as a representative of Boundary-Similkameen, to speak out in this House on those two industries. They are B.C. industries; they employ B.C. people and I feel they produce a good product.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: And, Mr. Chairman, the other thing is that the Grape Marketing Board, the grape-growers, are not involved in subsidy. They have not come under the Farm Income Assurance Plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWITT: I imagine that if things got tough, they would make the application. But they're proud of the fact that they are standing on their own two feet as one industry supporting the other.

MR. LAUK: On their own two blue feet.

MR. HEWITT: Hon. Member, I would like maybe to invite you to Penticton to tour the Casabello winery. I can tell you that it is one of the cleanest, finest wineries in the world.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, these people are not subsidized but I think this assembly owes some protection to their market and I think 20 per cent representation of still wines under $3 by imported wines is a good representation and it gives our consumer the opportunity to please their palate with foreign wines under $3. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say any more. The wines in B.C. are coming of age, and all I am saying is.... (Laughter.) I am sure, Mr. Chairman, if you take that remark in the way it was meant it would be on the basis.... I am sure they can speak out for themselves here today but I have had the opportunity to rise on the occasion of replying to my colleague for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) who is an excellent gentleman and I am sure an excellent wine connoisseur. I make no reflection on his knowledge of the problem. I thought his presentation was just excellent. My case rests on behalf of the grape growers and the wineries of B.C. Thank you.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I think one thing this committee cannot accuse me of is having a vested interest in this particular situation. In New Westminster we grow no grapes of any significance. Those grapes that we do grow, I assure you, you don't make wine from those grapes. So, Mr. Chairman, I think, however....

MR. LEA: Vodka!

AN HON. MEMBER: Moonshine! (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: I think, however, Mr. Chairman, that we have a lot of expertise in New Westminster, having a population in our area that has tremendous expertise in making wine on a home basis. We have a large Italian community in Queensborough and they are noted for their own wine industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get all their grapes?

MR. COCKE: Incidentally, they don't buy many of their grapes from the interior of B.C. I suggest that day will come, I hope. But, Mr. Chairman, I believe, as I have said before in this Legislature, that we must in some way assure that a region as potentially great as the Rhine in Germany and some of the other regions in France be afforded an opportunity to improve their product.

Now the member for Boundary-Similkameen will indicate to you that they have been doing a great job. I suggest that they have a lot of doing to do before they are doing a great job. But we certainly have to afford them every opportunity to get together with both government and the wine industry and develop a philosophy that's consistent throughout the whole industry. There hasn't really been a consistent philosophy. We've been waffling around.

We've had members in this House stand up and attack the B.C. wine industry. The now minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), formerly the leader of — oh, all sorts of different positions he has held in this House, but, anyway, not to go through that list because it would take too much time — stood up in this House and he put forward an experimental programme. We found out afterwards that he provided all the wine and, I suspect, had had a sample of each first. Well, that was what was in....

Interjections.

[ Page 1294 ]

MR. COCKE: In any event, Mr. Chairman, the experiment or the demonstration wasn't to my satisfaction in any way.

Now I have, as probably many of you know, a hobby around this particular area for a number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: A hockey game.

MR. COCKE: I buy grapes in large quantities every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where from?

MR. COCKE: And, as a matter of fact, for the last couple of years I have had good quality grapes. I haven't been forced to blend in any way. I have had good quality grapes from the interior of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you in competition with the Liquor Control Board?

MR. COCKE: Well, if I ever go to competition, you're in deep trouble, Mr. A.G.

For instance, I can recall a couple of years ago securing a Michelle noir, which is a B.C. hybrid, and it was over 25 per cent sugar. People say it's impossible in this province, but it was, and its acid was just about bang-on at .67. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we have the capacity to do this, but our problem is that haven't been doing it well enough, because we have a bunch of junk up there.

One of the problems I have had all over the years is trying to convince people that somehow or another we're going to have to put this industry together. I recall one day having a discussion with an Italian friend of mine and I said: "How come you're not experimenting with B.C. grapes?" He said: "Well, you don't make good wine out of them." I said: "Well, how do you verify that?" He said: "I want you to look at some of those wineries up there."

And I'm certainly excluding Casabello from this because I know that winery quite well and I think they do a very fine job up there, and the lack of chemicals is significant. They do a proper aging process, and they do a fine job. I've been through their winery on more than one occasion, and I happen to know that that kind of group.... As I say, no vested interest whatsoever because they're not even in New Westminster, but there are some wines that have not contributed to the industry in B.C.

We have suffered from the addition of far too much grain alcohol. We've suffered from a past, a history, where it was called "goof" at the best, and t "screech" at the worst. Therefore we've built a reputation that we must somehow unbuild. We've got to unbuild that reputation. I

While B.C. Is noted for not having sufficient sun-hours.... We don't have as many sun-hours in the Okanagan, despite the fact that it's hotter, as we have in the Niagara peninsula. The Niagara peninsula, incidentally, is about equal in latitude to San Francisco or thereabouts — it dips way down into the continent. But that doesn't mean....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Teacher, you go back to your geography and you'll find that.... Wait a minute — northern California, at any event.

But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Okanagan Valley is capable, in my view, of producing excellent grapes. They are now, in small areas, producing better and better grapes. There's always the danger of the winter kill, so therefore they've had to work harder on the hybrid variety where they transplant a vinifera onto a kind of native-type grape.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Labrosca is fine. Only half-way through.

Mr. Chairman, the things that I'd like to bring to your attention are these: the one way that you're going to produce the kinds of grapes up there, which are not going to be ripping off our whole wine system, would be a total commitment to putting together the kind of project where everyone involved takes part. Now that includes the Attorney-General's department, that includes the Department of Agriculture, and that includes the wine industry.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why didn't you guys do it?

MR. COCKE: As a matter of fact, we did very well in that; we did the same protectionist thing that everybody has traditionally done. But I say now do a little bit more.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. COCKE: Just do exactly what I'm saying: put all the groups together and get some kind of a commitment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've been through it, eh?

MR. COCKE: You're not going to get a commitment by allowing a great sugar-manufacturing organization, producing very, very low quality wine, to get away with that type of thing. That's really what I'm saying: if they're all together, working together, that renders those kinds of brands less and less desirable in the public's mind. That's the

[ Page 1295 ]

situation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to dictate standards?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one thing that the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) said was that the domestic wineries spend at least 100 per cent of their money in Canada. No, they don't, because they import a fair quantity of grapes from California to blend — particularly zinfandel and others. I suggest to you that we do have the capacity here — if we really harness it and really cooperate with one another — to develop an industry in this province. Once you've done that, then you can open up the borders, open up the liquor stores to the other brands. But I still say that there has to be some protection.

I don't care who takes the taste tests — whether it's the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) or whoever — the fact is that if we don't protect our own industry, just like the food industry, eventually that industry will dry up. We all saw the whole tomato thing go down the drain, half a generation and a generation ago, just because we allowed importation to the extent that our own industry went down the tube. So, Mr. Chairman, let's see what we can do for a better understanding of our own product developed in this province.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, just in reply to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who made certain implications but is no longer here, it is my contention that wine should be made of grapes and nothing else. That is the international and world standard, and I would hope that's a standard we hope to achieve in British Columbia. I would suggest that if the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) would like to table the evidence of his own product, I would help him be the judge of it.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I am on the side of the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), within limits, but when the member says that our local wines are not subsidized, that's not true. They are subsidized in terms of low markup through the LCB, they are subsidized in terms of generous shelf space and they are subsidized in terms of having far too many listings. The de-listing process should be expedited, because one company — Labatt's or Standard or whatever it is — having all kinds of sizes and brands for the same wine and choking up our shelf space is quite unnecessary.

I agree with you that B.C. should become a real wine-producing centre like the Mozelle or the Rhone and the Rhine that can stand on its own feet. I know that in California it took them 20 or 30 years, after they had a disaster with their grapes, to develop the kind of good wines they have now, which can compete and export. I say British Columbia can do it. We have had excellent conferences up in the Okanagan between the Department of Agriculture, experts in this field, the wineries and the grape growers. They should be continued.

We started off in the Okanagan probably growing the worst kind of grape: the old Calona grape. You know — have a big grape, produce the wine, get it on the shelf, sell it, make a profit, cut it, get out. We can improve the quality of the grapes; we can do all of these things.

I think the clear message in this Legislature should be that our wine industry in British Columbia is on trial. They've got so long to produce a wine that will stand on its own feet in competition with foreign wines, even California wines. That should be a message that goes out to what are now big companies that control these wineries: that you've got so long and the pressure's going to be on you and there will be some de-listings and better price breaks to the consumer for imported wines. Within that time-frame they've got to make it work or they go under. So let's keep the pressure on and then we can have in this province a really good wine industry if they meet that challenge. If they don't, let them go under.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that once again the coalition government shows signs of falling apart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: The split in the ranks has not gone unnoticed by this Legislature. I wish, if I may, Mr. Chairman, briefly...

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 10.

MR. BARBER: ...speaking to the issue of the Liquor Control Board, to remind the people of this Legislature that several citizens in my riding work at the Growers Winery out on Quadra Street, just down from my own home, as a matter of fact. I think this is a shocking attack made by the now-absent member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers). There is a brand of loganberry wine produced of a most unusual sort. (Laughter.) It's really a remarkable product!

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Uncle Clem.

MR. BARBER: I think that my Uncle Clem deserves some recognition for his heroic efforts over the years out there in Saanich on Oldfield Road to contribute to the growth, so to speak, of the wine industry in British Columbia.

I think it should also not go unnoticed that the

[ Page 1296 ]

member for Vancouver South is a co-owner of Fort Victoria Properties, which recently opened Market Square, wherein we find Kosta's Restaurant, the only Greek restaurant in Victoria. I trust that his reference to the lack of Greek wines was in no way based on his enjoyment of Kosta's Restaurant. But I am sure he is correct; there probably aren't very many Greek wines to speak of either.

What I want to speak about, though, if I may, Mr. Chairman, is the subject of the ombudsman. As I mentioned in my response to the throne speech, I support the ombudsman. I mentioned then and I repeat it now that I wish our guys had done it; I wish your guys had done it before; I'm glad you're doing it now. The ombudsman is not provided for anywhere else in the minister's estimates. It seems to me that vote 10 is the only way that we can raise this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to the member that if he wishes to have a discussion of the ombudsman it is out of order at this time in committee because it is anticipating legislation which was announced in the throne speech debate.

MR. BARBER: Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I understood, having conferred earlier, that it was permissible to do this because there is no bill before us and there is nothing to anticipate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member just be seated for a moment, and I'll try and cite some authority. The book that I have before me here now happens to be the 16th edition of May. At page 739(m) it says: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation, cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." As a result of that I would rule that it's fine to mention the ombudsman, but to have to debate on the ombudsman is out of order at this time.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, agreeing with what's in the book, nevertheless I think the member should be able to say something about what can be done now, procedurally, in terms of preparing for the proper kind of bill, and I think that's his intention. What can be done administratively by this Legislature in preparation for this bill, and how it should be handled, I think, is what he intends to address himself to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I mentioned that perhaps it would be fine to refer to the need for an ombudsman, but to have a debate on the ombudsman at this time would be out of order. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Do we have the assurance from the Attorney-General that the bill will be introduced this session?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Definitely.

MR. BARBER: Then, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to reserve my remarks until the bill is introduced.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to put the cork in the little wine debate, if I could. The remarks of all the members have been very seriously considered by myself, and are being considered by not only myself but by the government. It's certainly not the intention at all of the government to do anything that would hinder or harm the grape growers in the Okanagan Valley. I think we're all delighted to see that it has become a thriving business and vocation, and we certainly wish them Godspeed in that.

I am, though, tempted to agree with the remarks of the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that, to an extent, the industry is still on trial, and I think that they are proving themselves. I cannot, though, completely reconcile those attitudes and facts with the one that there should be freedom of choice in society.

I don't really know that we should take the position that the consumer in British Columbia should have his taste dictated on the shelf. If there is a need for support to the industry, which has not been requested, conceivably that would be one that perhaps should come from other sources. But it's a question of degree. I can't honestly say, in my view, that the consuming public have had the opportunity to receive the kind of choice that I think they should be entitled to.

We find the consuming public in other parts of Canada enjoying a far better selection. I would like to read from an extract that was given to me from the liquor administration branch referring to the Canadian and foreign listings. I refer to the year 1974, which is the closest year that is available to me at the present time. Unfortunately I can't refer to all of the provinces because the photocopy didn't come through too well, but the ones that I can name I shall.

The first figures show the Canadian listings in a province, and the second figures that I refer to in each case show the foreign imports:

Province No. 1, which I guess would be a Maritime province: 74 Canadian to 118 coming in.

Prince Edward Island: 56 Canadian, 79 foreign.

Next province: 93 Canadian, 257 foreign.

Next one: 146 Canadian, 199 foreign.

Next one: 85 Canadian, 710 foreign.

The next province is the province of Ontario, and thought should be given to it because it is a province that produces grapes: 275 Canadian, 616 foreign — I think that's an imbalance.

Next province: 113 Canadian, 348 foreign.

Next one: 120 Canadian, 142 foreign.

[ Page 1297 ]

Next one: 152 Canadian, 270 foreign.

Now British Columbia: 243 Canadian wine products on the shelf, and 182 foreign.

B.C. is the only province in Canada that has the balance of domestic product over the foreign. It has been mentioned that the Canadian wines under this $3 list that are on the shelves in B.C. are 216 at the present time, as opposed to 37 imported.

This is not government policy — just suggestions — and this is something that I mentioned last night and yesterday. I think that a great deal of the purpose of debate in this House is not to expect an absolute firm commitment every time the minister stands up to respond to the opposition or to a member of the government, but here are some views that have been expressed.

Here's one way that might provide additional assistance to the B.C. grape-growing industry to permit them to perhaps sell some of their surplus, which I understand they have, by allowing the purchasers by licencees of bulk wines to buy in containers, for example, larger than the one gallon presently used, such as stainless steel tanks or small casks up to 5- or 10-gallon capacity.

Give the British Columbia product a preferential market there whereby maybe the stores could have a B.C. vin du pays and they would be able to buy a cask of wine, as opposed to receiving it in bottled form, and then it could be, perhaps, sold under the name of the licencee — Dennis's Rosé, Alex's Flat, Emery's Bubbly. See? (Laughter.) That might be one suggestion.

Also, I gather Ontario's had a pretty useful experiment over the last short while. It opened a Wines of Ontario store, and it had a terrific success. The only wines that were sold in that liquor outlet were the domestic wines of Ontario. That might be an approach to take.

As the members of the opposition, and, I think, the government, all know, we as a new government are looking very carefully at the liquor act that came in through the former administration, and which has not been proclaimed — am I right in that?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, the regulations have not been processed. But we've requested an overview of the Act and an overview of the regulations. I can't say that you'll get a statement during this session, but within the next few months there's certainly going to be an affirmative position taken by the government once we've had an opportunity to digest both the Act and the regulations.

I think some better selection to the general public, to the consuming public, would be in their better interests, and hopefully — well, I'll not say hopefully — I can't see how this is really going to be the death knell to the provincial wine industry, nor should it. If that was going to be the case, we'd have to look at it from an entirely different light. It's a question of balance; it's a question of degree. We're going to look at it from those points of view.

MR. MACDONALD: While we're on the same subject, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General when he is going to allow the sale of beer, and perhaps wine, in the small stores. I'm not thinking of the Safeways; I'm thinking of the Mom and Pop stores. You know, we delayed the thing while we heard the public response. The response I got — and I'd be interested in what other MLAs got — was overwhelmingly favourable to making it more convenient to the public, to giving a better chance for livelihood for the small, independent grocer and his family who work long hours for low remuneration, and giving a choice of location to the public that they haven't got at the present time.

It didn't seem to me, although I studied the representations very carefully, that this was in any sense promotion of alcoholism. In fact, you know, making it more readily available in an open way, rather than a clandestine way with licencees and all of this, is to make it a more natural thing and to militate against excessive drinking.

I ask the Attorney-General: in view of this, will he now proceed with the regulation? Because if the legislation has been passed, the sections can be proclaimed. You can proclaim the sections and then you can pass the regulation to make this possible.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I just told you two minutes ago.

MR. MACDONALD: Did you announce on the cornerstore?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: No, no! I don't want to let you off the hook quite that well; I want to know whether the government will proceed now, as it should proceed now, with allowing the small corner store to sell beer and possibly wines as well. What's the answer to that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member was sitting no more than about 20 feet away from me when I made a statement no more than about two minutes ago. I said that the government is reviewing the Act and is reviewing the regulations, and until such time that is attended to there's not going to be any change.

[ Page 1298 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, last night I raised a couple of questions about the family court. I guess it must have slipped the minister's memory because in replying to other parts of my question you failed to respond to the statements I made about the decision to freeze hiring and to cut back on services of the family court despite the fact that that decision was working such a hardship on the delivery of justice to a specific segment of our society. I am wondering whether in answering the other questions I'm going to raise today you would also deal with the question of the family court.

I didn't bring my family court file in with me today, but if you're having any difficulties I'll go and get it.

I just wanted to put my two-bits in to the wine debate — just to say, on a completely different topic, that I was very sad at the government's decision to return South African wines to the shelf. I just think I should go on record as saying that I don't really anticipate that you will reverse your decision on that behalf. But certainly it would have served to kill a number of birds with one stone — part of the idea of protecting the local grape growers and the wine industry, and at the same time taking some kind of moral stand on the whole case of South Africa.

However, it seems we won't have to worry about the situation in South Africa for many number of years because it seems that the people of Africa themselves have decided to solve that little one, and the rest of us will be able to get off the hook in terms of our moral commitment to that country.

What I want to talk about specifically today, Mr. Minister, is your responsibility for the landlord and tenant legislation. A large number of the residents of the Burrard constituency are tenants. As you know, under the previous administration it became increasingly clear, as a result of the petition made to us at that time as government, that the tenants were beginning to feel they were not being sufficiently protected by the free market system. They asked that legislation be introduced to give them some kind of protection — not to reverse things, but to make the situation more equitable.

At that time your predecessor, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), introduced the Landlord and Tenant Act, and that is now under your jurisdiction. A rentalsman was appointed, and I want to speak specifically about a couple of the problems that my constituents find they are having with the whole idea of how the rentalsman's office is operating, how the rentalsman himself is dealing with legislation which wasn't perfect — it wasn't perfect when it was introduced — and to express a hope that you will close the gap in that piece of legislation.

The major problem seems to be that the rentalsman's office has judicial power, but they have no rules of evidence. I want to preface my statements by saying that, as you know, I am not a legal person, and I'm not even quite sure what all of these things mean. But I know that what my constituents tell me is that the outcome of cases which go before the rentalsman, as a result of his having no rules of evidence, are largely decided by the officers who handle the case. What we have is disparity.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That is what your government wished to do to....

MS. BROWN: I know. What I am saying to you, Mr. Attorney-General, as chief law-enforcement officer in the province, responsible for this particular piece of legislation, is that I accept that the bill was not perfect. You are now in a position to make it perfect. One of the major loopholes in it, which you could plug, has to do with the business of rules of evidence.

The other problem we are having is the hours that the rentalsman's office is open. The rentalsman's office, as you know, operates five days a week from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. What this means is that the ordinary working stiff really has no recourse to the rentalsman's office because there are no night openings, no weekend openings — not even one evening a week — you know, the way that Safeway, drugstores and other service-oriented establishments operate. I would like to ask whether your department has looked into the business of opening the rentalsman's office even one evening a week, or, failing that, on weekends, so that people who work from 9 to 5 have an opportunity to use the rentalsman's office too.

The other complaint I have received has to do with the reluctance on the part of the police to enforce the legislation. This is something I think you probably could repair very quickly just by simply issuing a directive to the police in terms of their rights under the Act and the whole business — encourage them to get on with the business of enforcing it.

The second reason has to do with eviction as it is used by landlords, and the two chief ones being used. The first one the landlord uses is that he needs the premises for his own use. Now that is a loophole that we recognized, and I think we had real problems in dealing with that. But now that you are new, and bringing a fresh perspective to bear on this very old problem, I am anticipating, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that maybe you can help deal with this problem of the rights of the tenants when the landlord says, honestly or otherwise, that he needs the premises for his own use.

The third one, and one which is of major concern in the particular riding of Vancouver-Burrard, has to do with demolition — the landlord evicting on the grounds that he is planning on demolishing the building. Then we find years and years later that the

[ Page 1299 ]

building is still standing there and that, in fact, the apartment has been re-rented to someone else. As soon as the tenant has been evicted and has packed up and left, it has been re-rented. Unfortunately, this is usually accompanied by an increase which is above the ceiling which is set by your department.

I want to give you a couple of specific cases about the rentalsman's office having to deal with the same landlord over and over again for the same crime. It's not a crime — whatever it is — for the same infraction. There doesn't seem to be any way that a decision can be handed down to prevent this.

I want to deal specifically again with my own riding, a landlord by the name of Mr. Jesse Alvarez. Now he owns six conversions in the riding and he is assembling more property. Four of his buildings are in the 2100 block West 3rd and the rentalsman knows him really well now because his tenants turn up at regular intervals with one complaint after another.

Let me tell you one of the interesting things he did. He gave permission to his tenants to renovate and redecorate their apartments. He said: "That's fine. Go ahead." He wouldn't supply the materials. They could supply their own materials. They could paint, fix up and do what had to be done. As soon as it was finished, he raised the rent on the grounds that the apartments had been redecorated, despite the fact that the tenants did the redecorating themselves and used their own materials to do it. When the tenants refused to pay the increased rent, he evicted them. He evicted them on the grounds that they refused to pay the increased rent! The eviction had nothing to do with the original.... He said: "You are evicted because you will not pay the rent."

Okay. The tenants got together and they went down as a body to see the rentalsman and the case was investigated and — give credit where credit is due — when Pat Musters investigated right at the very beginning and found the complete story of the case, the eviction was squashed. The tenants were allowed to return to their apartments, which they had decorated, at the rent which they were formerly paying.

Not long after, another group of tenants from Mr. Alvarez' building turned up again. He had decided that he was going to demolish for renovations. Now I am not quite sure how you demolish for renovations, but Mr. Alvarez was going to demolish for renovations. This time he got away with it. The tenants were evicted and when they appealed.... The tenants trotted down to the rentalsman's office again but this time the decision of the rentalsman's office was that there was nothing they could do. If he says he is going to demolish in order to renovate, maybe he has a new and innovative way of renovating by demolishing first, and therefore the evictions went through.

Now what does one do? I am only citing two of the instances of this particular landlord. It is a regular occurrence. He continually tests the limits of the legislation. Of course he wins some and he losses some. What is your department going to do, or is there anything really that you can do when you find a landlord, the same landlord, continually and repeatedly breaking the same law over and over again?

Okay, again I am still dealing with the rentalsman. What about this business, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, of landlords refusing to rent accommodation to families with children? I recognize that when a senior citizens' home is built and designated as a senior citizens' home that the last thing you want in that apartment block is young children of any age, even babies who cry or children who run up and down in the corridors or whatever. But unless a building is designated as being specifically for one course, why does the law permit this as grounds for refusal to rent? It's not covered under the human rights legislation and it's not covered under the landlord and tenant legislation. It's not covered anywhere.

This kind of arbitrary decision is used over and over again for one reason or another by landlords at a time when there really is a shortage of good family housing, housing for young families who want to remain in the city because they work in the city and have small children. It's difficult to find accommodation because this decision is made that children are not human beings. And if you have children, then a landlord has the right to refuse accommodation to you despite the fact that the house has not been designated as being for one specific reason or another. Okay.

The other point I would like to raise, again dealing with the landlord and tenant, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that I have received numberless complaints that the illegal entry by landlords into suites is not being enforced. I am continually hearing this by telephone and by letter.

I do get a lot of landlord and tenant complaints because more than 70 per cent of the riding is apartment blocks and rooming-houses, so it is a major concern. It is a very big issue in the riding. The enforcing of the law against illegal entry is not being enforced — it's not being enforced.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: What about this business of rent controls, if you want to call it that, not applying to rooming-houses? Another sticky little wicket that we had to deal with but which again is being thrown into your ball park, Mr. Minister. There are more and more rooming-houses; there are more and more buildings where just rooms are leased — that's all. Yesterday I attended a meeting at Vancouver City

[ Page 1300 ]

Hall and one of the things that came out of that meeting was that there is an increase in the number of houses that are being converted to rooming-houses. Yet there is no protection presently under the existing legislation for these houses. So would you look into that?

What about the business of tenants' organizations? I really don't want to belabour the point, but this is such a really crucial issue in the riding. What about the business of tenants' organizations? Are you going to recognize them as bargaining units, as spokespeople for the tenants? There are really some active groups existing in the city of Vancouver — groups like RUSH, groups like the Vancouver Tenants' Association. There are groups that really do understand the kind of problems that tenants are under and really are prepared to speak for them. One of the things, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm continually finding is the fear of individual tenants to lay complaints themselves just in case, at some later date, the landlord uses that as a reason for eviction. Housing is really tight and, in fact, nobody is prepared to jeopardize their living conditions at this time for one reason or another. If you get evicted in Vancouver, the chances are you're not going to find another apartment there. So we find that the kind of job done by the tenants' organizations is really a useful one.

I wanted to tell you something that RUSH has done, and of course everyone's heard about RUSH — they publish their own newspaper. It's an organization that operates in the Kitsilano area within the Burrard constituency. I'm deeply grateful to them because they certainly monitor the system on behalf of the tenants and continually keep us informed of what is going on. But that organization was actually able to get a roll-back in rent on behalf of a group of tenants. They really were able to do that.

The problem is — and here again I raise the question of money — these kinds of organizations need, first of all, recognition, and then they need some kind of funding. So would you make a note of that, Mr. Minister — the business of recognizing tenants' organizations as being representative of the group, bargaining for them, and also giving them some kind of financial support so that they will be able to do the things that are necessary?

I want to quote for you another case, an example of what's happened in the riding in terms of rental accommodation. This has to do.... I won't give you the owner's name, for no specific reason at all, but this is just an example of what happened. On the 2300 block West 5th Avenue, where there's a nine-suite apartment block. At the end of August the landlord evicted everyone because he was going to tear the block down. At the time of eviction the suites were renting for $250 — that's at the end of August. On September 1, all of the suites were re-occupied and at that time the rent was $425. The decision was made — and we don't know to what extent the landlord was telling the truth — that his plans for demolition didn't work out, so he decided not to demolish after all and he had to re-rent, but in fact the new tenants came in at almost twice the rent that the old tenants went out at. How are you going to deal with that? How are we going to deal with these kinds of loopholes under the Act? The Rent Review Commission could do with some beefing up and could do with some teeth, Mr. Minister.

I don't want to go on too long because I want to get some kind of statement from you about the whole business of the landlord and tenant legislation. If the minister will deal with that, then I will raise my other points afterwards.

Aren't you going to deal with the landlords and tenants legislation?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Go ahead and make the rest of your points.

MS. BROWN: I've got about a couple of hours.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I'll bring out my other points.

I want to talk about community of property, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed on vote 10.

MS. BROWN: The Berger commission, the royal commission on family and children's law, as you know, Mr. Attorney-General, tabled one of its report, the sixth report, dealing with matrimonial property. As you know, the recommendation of that report was that property accumulated after marriage should be considered as joint ownership, as belonging to both partners in the marriage. One of the questions I want to ask you, Mr. Minister, is what has happened, first of all, to all of the recommendations of the Berger report, but specifically what has happened to report No. 6? Now on March 22, when the women visited Victoria on their rally, you were visited by some women from your constituency. At that time they raised the question of No. 6 of the Berger reports, dealing with community of property, and I think — and I could be incorrect on this; correct me if I'm wrong — that a commitment was given to look at this report. You didn't commit yourself to do anything but look at it. Okay. So what I'm raising now is the question of the sixth report and what has happened to it.

[ Page 1301 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. What does that mean? Are you going to.... Do you want to reply?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No commitments. It's under review, under consideration.

MS. BROWN: Okay, but I have a couple of recommendations to make. Are you prepared, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, to consider one of the legislative committees dealing with the recommendations in this report? Now, you know, it has already been canvassed extensively around the province. As you know, the Berger commission certainly canvassed extensively around the province, but I know that you want to introduce a piece of legislation, then refer it, hopefully, to one of the legislative committees and give us an opportunity to view the kind of legislation that you would be introducing if you dealt with the recommendations in this report. Are you prepared to consider...? Sorry.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Are you prepared to consider introducing legislation sometime during this session, Mr. Attorney-General, and then asking one of the legislative committees to deal with this? Would you, further, be prepared to accept a piece of legislation which I have prepared for you dealing with the recommendations in the sixth report? Now I recognize that you're an extremely busy minister and can use all the assistance that you can get, and so I have prepared a bill for you. Would you be interested in using this little suggestion?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: A simple yes will do.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the only way we can receive an answer is if the Attorney-General is recognized and is standing in his place, and that can only happen when the present member is seated.

MS. BROWN: That's fine. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I took your suggestion, and I sat in my seat to give the Attorney-General the opportunity to deal with the questions — two simple questions — which I raised, one pertaining to the landlord and tenants legislation which affects more than 70 per cent of the people living throughout the greater Vancouver area. The Vancouver Centre members, if they were here, would speak on that behalf too. The second point I've tried to raise has to do with the recommendation of the Berger report on matrimonial property — community of property. I don't want to have to go into the history of why it is necessary to set up a royal commission to look into this really crucial area. I have even gone so far as to burn the midnight oil and prepare a bill for the Attorney-General so he would have a jumping off point from which to begin.

Now would the Attorney-General do me the courtesy of giving at least some answers to some of the questions which I've raised?

HON. MR, GARDOM: In response to the hon. member's first question re the family court, 12 new counselling positions have been made available. I can't answer today whether or not they have been filled. Vis-a-vis the many points she raised concerning landlord and tenant difficulties and the rentalsman, I thank her for bringing them to the attention of myself and my officials. They will be considered.

Vis-a-vis the Berger sixth report, as I have said before to the many people who have approached me and, I gather, other members of the government, it is under review. When we are in the position to announce government policy on it we will do so.

Mr. Chairman, I see that we're getting close to the earliest witching hour that we approach on a Friday afternoon. I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.