[ Page 3243 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

On vote 212. Mr. Levi –– 3250

Mr. Kahl 3243 Hon. Mr. Mair 3250

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3243 Ms. Sanford –– 3250

Mr. Levi –– 3243 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3251

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3245 Ms. Brown –– 3251

Mr. Lloyd –– 3247 Mr. Cocke –– 3252

Hon. MR. Mair –– 3247 Mr. Mussallem –– 3252

Mr. Levi –– 3247 Mr. Cocke –– 3253

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3247 Mr. Lauk –– 3253

Ms, Brown –– 3248 Mr. Barnes –– 3254

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3249 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3258

Mr. Lauk –– 3249 Mrs. Jordan –– 3259

Mr. Rogers –– 3249 Mr. King –– 3261

Mr. Levi –– 3249 MR. Lea –– 3262

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3250 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3263

Mr. Nicolson –– 3263

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 212: minister's office, $108,644 -

continued.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I'll just take a moment,

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Are you on a point of order, hon. member?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Could you swing around before you recognize anybody to see if anybody in this corner is standing up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, stand up!

MR. LEVI: I am standing up!

MR. KAHL: To the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, I'll just be a minute.

Earlier this afternoon, I attempted to ask the second half of a question I was pursuing. The minister had indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the Colwood Cemetery in my constituency, that there was a report going to the cabinet on or about July 12. I was wondering if the information for that report was based on a study that was being done by an accounting firm from the greater Victoria area, as reported in the Goldstream Gazette of this week; It's come to my attention that the grant of money which they had to do the study has run out and the study is only about half done in the final recommendations of what should be done with the cemetery. I wonder if the minister could just bring me up to date on that, please.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): The answer to the member's question is yes. The recommendations are, to a large measure, based on the report of Coopers and Lybrand, The report, while not complete, is sufficiently complete for us to seek the approval of cabinet to come up with the solution which we propose. So while they do have more to do, at least insofar as coming up with this part of the solution is concerned, we have enough information. We're ready to proceed.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated in his opening remarks this afternoon that he was, I think, not too happy with the assurance for voluntary compliance. I think he indicated that. Well, if he's not happy, I'm positively miserable about it. I think that what appears to have happened with the assurance of voluntary compliance is that what started out to be an excellent idea - certainly it was not intended, I appreciate - where you could avoid going to court. . That would be good and you could get that kind of an agreement. But what I think was a very blatant misuse of the assurance of voluntary compliance occurred in March of this year. I'm going to go into the case because I did write to the director of trade practices. I want to point out, because of this moving towards an assurance of voluntary compliance, that I think the intent of the AVD is to point out to people that if you go wrong, we're watching you - not only the people whom you're actually signing the assurance with but also with other people.

Now I wrote to the director of the trade practices division of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on May 9, and I'd just like to read the letter and then go into his reply. Did I get it right that time?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's Consumer and Corporate Affairs, right? I've got it written down. Right.

"Dear Mr. Hanson:

"I recently read the assurance of voluntary compliance that you signed with Docksteader Motors in February, 1977. 1 note, in reading your department's trade bulletin, May, 1976, that this problem arose in car sales and that it states under 'explanations' on the last page, in the second paragraph: 'AVCs often call for consumers to receive refunds and other redress.' Could you tell me how many customers in the Docksteader case received such refunds or other redress?

"My concern relates to the fact that the department did initiate legal action with respect to Docksteader and then stopped it and entered into an assurance of voluntary compliance, Surely, based on the information in the documents that you signed in February, 1977, here was a case that needed a judicial determination."

I went on to say:

"Although I am not a lawyer, I understand that the intention to commit fraud needs to be

[ Page 3244 ]

proved. Because the process of investigation and concluding AVCs can be lengthy, why are not certain cases dealt with in the courts so that, as in other criminal matters" - and this was a civil matter, I understand - "the protection of the public is paramount, as must be the protection of the consumer? Cases that are successfully concluded in the judicial manner can have a salutary effect on other possible offenders. Could you tell me what was the basis of your decision not to pursue a court action in Docksteader's case?"

He wrote back on May 16 and said:

"To answer your first question, two consumers obtained full rescission in respect to the vehicles sold by this company, and these were the only consumers which we were able to identify as having been subjected to misleading or deceptive practices which were alleged in this case.

"You have made the suggestion that negotiations concluding the assurance of voluntary compliance may be a lengthy process. However, as you have indicated, this case was originally initiated by an application of the supreme court under section 16 of the Trade Practices Act. Under some circumstances the injunction relief sought under section 16 can be expedited by asking for an interim injunction, although this would not normally be followed by full trial to obtain the permanent or declaratory injunction. Our experience has been that a trial of this kind takes two years or more to appear before the courts and, based on a recent example, reserve judgments also take a long time to be handed down.

"Three or four enforcement options contained in the Trade Practices Act follow the civil court process. One of the salient principles seems to be that every opportunity is afforded to settle civil matters before the court is asked to determine the issue."

I just want to point out that in this case, this particular AVC was drawn to my attention by a lawyer who said, based on what he had read in the agreement, it seemed to be a clear case of fraud. I went to see the individuals who were involved in this case - the man and wife who went to Docksteader and bought a Toyota car. They were told that it was a new car, and subsequently found out that the car had been in an accident, had been fixed up and had been sold to them. It took them almost a year to get the money back for this car. There was a second situation dealing with the same firm.

Now it seems to me that sooner or later we're going to have to take some of these people to court. I would suggest that if there is sufficient basis to lay a charge, then there should be.

For instance, on April 6,1977, in the enforcement report, you have an assurance of voluntary compliance dealing with the Impala Industries Ltd.

"The director of trade practices has signed an assurance of voluntary compliance with the Impala Industries, which carries on business at 1070 Cambie Road in Richmond, The director alleged that the Impala Industries sold a tent trailer to a consumer without disclosing to the consumer that the unit had been previously sold, used and returned. Under the Trade Practices Act this practice could constitute a deceptive act."

Now I appreciate that in some cases the AVC can have the kind of salutary effect that's necessary. You are a lawyer; I don't want you to stand up and interpret the law to us, but surely where there appears to be not only deception but an attempted outright fraud, there really has to be some other recourse besides this in order to demonstrate to people in the business that you can't keep going on and if you happen to get caught, well, that's okay, "We'll go down and see the director of trade practices, we'll sign an AVC, and we won't do it again."

I know that was not the intent but that appears to be what is happening with the AVCs. That is very unfortunate because the intent was pretty good. Now I appreciate, as Mr. Hanson has pointed out, it takes a long time to go through the courts. Well, we'll have to find a somewhat shorter method of dealing with some of these cases.

In the Docksteader case, I went to see the young couple that was involved. Let me just read, if I might, the basis of what the AVC said:

"Docksteader Motors purchased automobiles which it knew had been involved in accidents which had caused substantial damage to the said automobiles. The automobiles were then sold to consumers without Docksteader Motors, its agents or employees disclosing to the consumers that the said automobiles had suffered the said damage.

"On or about February, 1975, a Toyota automobile was owned by Docksteader's and on February 6 an employee of Docksteader's was involved in an accident while driving the Toyota. On or about August 16, Docksteader sold the Toyota to a consumer without disclosing to the consumer that the Toyota had been involved in the said accident."

And then in the second case:

"On or about February, 1976, Docksteader purchased a Honda automobile. The vendor advised Docksteader Motors that the Honda had previously been involved in an accident which caused substantial damage to the Honda, and the vendor also advised Docksteader that

[ Page 3245 ]

although the odometer in the Honda indicated that the Honda had traveled approximately 2,000 miles, the Honda had in fact traveled approximately 17,000 miles.

"On or about February, 1976, they sold the Honda to a consumer without disclosing that the Honda had been involved in an accident. Further, Docksteader Motors represented to the consumer that the Honda had only traveled 2,000 miles."

From my point of view that not only is deception, it's almost fraud. It's an intent to do something which I think, without having too much knowledge of the law, is a lot more serious than the business of deceptive practice. If this kind of thing goes on, it would seem to me that from time to time it's necessary to have a really hard approach to this, Some people will just have to go to court on criminal fraud, if that's the case. In looking at all of the information laid before the court when you had your action through your trade practices division, I'm informed by lawyers that there was a lot of information there sufficient to possibly conclude the action even in a criminal manner. So I would like to hear from the minister in respect to what is going to happen with the AVCs, because this represents two very, very serious problems.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm very pleased to discuss the AVC with the member, The AVC in theory, Mr. Member, is a very good tool to have at our disposal, but you're quite correct in saying that it has not worked out well in practice. The problem has been that anybody who transgresses the Trade Practices Act has taken it to be his right to negotiate one. To further compound the difficulties we had a legal opinion rendered about two years ago to the effect that we might be under some obligation to negotiate an AVC in circumstances where a charge might be contemplated. I don't agree with that legal opinion. If that legal opinion is correct, I would like to have a court tell me that it is correct.

The instructions that have been handed down to my department in clear, unequivocal terms are simply these: first of all, in appropriate cases, we should, of course, try to mediate any dispute between the supplier and the consumer. If, however, there has been a transgression of the Trade Practices Act, we are to prosecute - not negotiate AVCs, prosecute.

Now the AVC, on which I might just expand, has been treated by many in the marketplace to be like a plea of nolo contendere in American courts. The argument that it takes too long to get to court doesn't hold water because it seems to take just as long to negotiate an AVC as it does to get to court, and then if you don't negotiate it, you've wasted all that time in any event.

If I may just repeat myself a little bit, we are indeed to prosecute if it is an act of contrition on the part of the supplier; if, in addition to that, it is in the best interest of the consumers affected; and further if it is in the public interest at some time as a settlement to enter into a AVC. All well and good, but we cannot tolerate the situation where the AVC is treated by the supplier to be his right and when he enters into something he could belly-ache about afterwards as having been forced upon him by an unfair government department.

So to summarize, Mr. Member, the instructions have been clearly handed down to the department some time ago that these prosecutions must go ahead in appropriate cases. I want you to know, and I want the committee to know, that at the motor dealers' association convention in Harrison earlier this month - I think it was June 10 or 11 - I told the assembled multitude the very thing I've told you tonight in the same clear and, I hope, unequivocal terms.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister indicating that when you're going to enforce the situation as far as going to court, it also means that in certain cases there may be criminal charges and not just the process of going in, as was done here, I think, on an injunction? Do you have in mind that too?

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't think there is any question, Mr. Member, that if the circumstances warrant, we will recommend to the Attorney-General's department that criminal charges be laid, I can't think of any cases offhand where we have done that, although I'm not saying that we haven't. The penalties under the Trade Practices Act are usually severe enough for us to proceed under that statute, but I certainly don't rule out by any means going to the A-G and saying: "We have a case that we feel goes beyond just the provisions of the Trade Practices Act and ought to be prosecuted by you under the Criminal Code of Canada." I don't rule out that at all.

MR. LEVI: I just want to move on, Mr. Chairman, to a couple of issues under the Mortgage Brokers Act, particularly in view of the recent articles that have appeared in the paper. I might say that an extremely unfortunate title was given to them - "the Greek Connection." I know that in Vancouver-Burrard, where there are many, many Greek people, they have been quite upset by the particular appellation that was attached to it.

However, what did come out in the articles - and I'm certainly not going to deal with the two cases that are involved - is what appears to be a practice in terms of the mortgage broker business where you can have a piece of property worth, I think, as in one case, $150,000, carrying about $400,000 worth of paper. It was sort of six separate mortgages. It was

[ Page 3246 ]

the case, I think, in Kamloops. Konas Village is the one that has about six mortgages on a piece of property, I think, worth less than $200,000; it is up to about $600,000 worth of paper.

Now some years ago in this House the former member for North Vancouver-Capilano raised this issue to some extent and the previous government did not actually come to grips with this issue. There are some very serious problems in respect to the whole business of how the mortgage brokering field is going to be monitored. There obviously are some concerns. I think that in the earlier CLEU report, indications are that there are all sorts of people who should not be in the mortgage brokering field who are.

I realize that we can't legislate stupidity. That's one of the difficulties in the consumer field; you can't save everybody from getting into trouble.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): You mean against stupidity.

MR. LEVI: I'm sorry, yes - against stupidity. Well, it's almost like legislating stupidity. Thank you very much. The teacher will out all the time.

You can't legislate against stupidity, but in the particular case of the home mortgage field it is so complicated when you are signing up. We have various types of people in the field, many of them doing a good job. But some of them are people who are prepared to take every advantage and take as much money from people as possible.

I was looking tonight before I came into the House at the difference between the legislation here and in Manitoba - not that that is specifically going to help the individual person who is going out seeking a mortgage, because they don't necessarily read the Act before they go do this. But there are some problems, I think, in our Act which seem to be a little better explained in the Act in Manitoba, where they are more specific about their definitions. We have a kind of general definition of a mortgage broker and they are much more specific in the way they deal with the definition.

If I might just use this as an example, the B.C. Act says:

"A mortgage broker means a person

" (i) who carries on a business of lending money secured in whole or in part by mortgages....

" (ii) who holds out as, or by an advertisement, notice, or sign indicates that he is, a mortgage broker;

" (iii) who carries on a business of buying and selling mortgages or agreements for sale; or " (iv) who, in any one year, receives an amount of $1,000 or more in fees on other consideration, excluding legal fees et cetera.

However, in the Manitoba Act they have broken it down into mortgage brokers and mortgage dealers. They define a mortgage broker and a mortgage dealer. They define a mortgage salesman. They define the relationship of a salesman and the job he does. It means "an individual employed as a registered mortgage broker and by a registered mortgage dealer, or a person registered as a broker under the Real Estate Brokers Act."

It seems to me that the Act we have badly needs upgrading. There has to be something done in terms of being more explicit about the definitions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. It is improper in committee to discuss legislation or the need for legislation or, as a matter of fact, matters involving legislation. So I must ask you to carry on to your next point.

MR. LEVI: Oh, really? I didn't know that. I thought that was why we were here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not in committee, sir.

MR. LEVI: I can't make reference to any Act at all?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not legislation or matters involving legislation or matters requiring legislation. So say the authorities.

MR. LEVI: So say the authorities. Well, you're the authority here, Mr. Chairman. You've just blown half my speech, do you know that?

HON. MR. MAIR: And all of my answer!

MR. LEVI: It is really interesting to listen to the applause of the freedom fighters. We've yet to have anybody say anything about anything other than burying people.

Will the minister indicate to us then, in a roundabout way so you don't create an infraction of the rules, what you have in mind in respect to the mortgage broker situation? I might say this: we seem to be having the same problem in relation to catching up with people who are doing things against the law in respect to mortgage brokers as we are in trying to process an assurance of voluntary compliance. It takes an incredible amount of time to get all of the information, to do all of the searching, when we know that every day many, many people are at the mercy of a lot of these very unscrupulous people. I don't like the term "rip-off artist"; I don't really think it defines too much. But that is going on all the time. It is very difficult to put these people out of business.

I know Mr. Getz' commission is constantly looking

[ Page 3247 ]

at people who are being brought before him, probably two or three times a month in terms of this. But there is an incredible turnover in that field. An incredible number of people are seeking to be registered as mortgage brokers, and later on they seem to go out and then they come back in another guise.

Perhaps the minister might indicate what kind of concern he has in this particular area.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will obey the rules, but I would like to advise the members of the committee that we are concerned about the question of mortgage broking and we're concerned about the law as it stands. It's under active review by my ministry at this point. I would like to point out to the members that there is a federal-provincial conflict. There are provisions in the proposed Borrowers' and Depositors' Protection Act federally which would alleviate some of the concerns that my friend from the other side, my good critic, has indicated.

I would also like to point out that our own Consumer Protection Act, although this particular section has not yet been proclaimed, does reverse the onus in mortgage transactions in terms of unconscionability. We have brought some remedial legislation to bear.

I do agree, however, that we have to go somewhat beyond the mere licensing of brokers and create some standards of conduct and some means by which we can enforce them. I think I can do no more than to reiterate that our department is looking at it on an active basis.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Some members have mentioned the rentalsman and the problems that have arisen from the rentalsman, particularly the problem of trying to operate from one centralized location. I think it's probably difficult enough in the case of apartments, but probably more so in the case of households where they are renting out a suite in the basement or another part of the house. I was wondering if the minister has given any consideration to amending the regulations in areas where there are a good deal of vacant rental units. I think it's probably an unnecessary hardship when certain people who are renting out accommodation are faced with living with a tenant whom they can't get along with and with whom difficulties are arising. I recently had a letter in my riding saying that these people were practically coming to gunshot; they were that antagonistic to each other. I think this is a pretty unfortunate situation, particularly at this time in Prince George when there are sufficient rental units available.

Yet for the landlord to have these people move to another location they practically have to engage the services of a lawyer to interpret the rentalsman's Act and to go through the various necessary stages. I'm just wondering, since we are considering removing rental controls where there are sufficient rental units available, if the minister's department is also considering amending the rentalsman Act or trying to get it more localized. I think it's a pretty difficult position for a rentalsman to try to decide what the tenant-landlord relationship should be in a remote location.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think I should make two points: First of all, by far the bulk of complaints handled by the rentalsman's office are handled by telephone, whether they come from Vancouver or Kamloops or Prince George. As you know, people can call long distance collect and the charge is picked up by the government. So to that extent, there is very little difference between the situation in Prince George, Kamloops, Penticton and in Vancouver.

Secondly, in cases where it is deemed appropriate because of the circumstances, the rentalsman's department will travel to the area involved. In the specific cases that the member for Fort George raises, I thought that I had made it clear this afternoon that we are concerned - as indeed are all the tenant organizations, not much less than the landlord organizations - that there be better provision for the eviction of truly bad tenants or eviction of tenants who simply will not pay their rent. We have amendments coming before this House in the very near future to cover that situation.

MR. LEVI: Earlier this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I did discuss with the minister this omnipotent role that he is going to play in terms of hearing all appeals in terms of liquor licensing. I would appreciate him enlarging on how he sees his somewhat ducal role in all this.

HON. MR. MAIR: I do apologize. The member did raise that and I had overlooked it.

First of all, let me say that I am having a second look at this myself. I'm becoming a little concerned, but not for the reasons that you are. I'm concerned that (a) it will be a lot of work, and I don't really need a great deal more work right now; and (b) I'm concerned that perhaps it might cause some morale problems within the branch itself if I were to overrule the general manager. I would, of course, feel constrained to overrule him if the circumstances warranted it. However, we're of an open mind on it at this point- I'm discussing it with my department at present. ~he appeals are scheduled to come to me. The appeals will not be large in number, I shouldn't think, but I don't view that as any reincarnation of

[ Page 3248 ]

the late colonel, because the only thing that I would be called upon to do would be to judge whether or not, in my opinion as a minister of the Crown, the branch had exercised its discretion in an appropriate way in turning down the licence.

I do, to some degree, share your concerns, and as I say, I'm reviewing the situation now. I frankly would like to get it somewhere else, but the problem is that the buck stops somewhere.

The problem we had with the liquor appeal board in the past is that rather than view the discretion of the general manager in what I consider to be the appropriate sense - in other words, did he properly consider where schools, hospitals, playgrounds and so on were - they tended to take a very legalistic approach. Did they get the required 60 per cent; did they get the required municipal consent; did they do the eight or ten things they had to do. If they did those things, then the board tended to overlook the fact that there were other discretionary matters that the people in the area had a right to have considered.

It's a thorny problem, Mr. Member. I'm not going to say that the government will change its view on this but I am saying that I'm a little concerned about it and we're reviewing it.

MR. LEVI: Now I've got some other things I want to raise, but I did promise to raise one issue on behalf of our caucus. Well, as a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Barrett's) executive assistant asked me if I would raise it, and I'm going to raise it on his behalf. Can the minister tell us that within his tenure of office it's going to be possible for an individual in this province to purchase a half a barrel of beer in a barrel?

I'd like just to enlarge on this. I was raised in England and I would hope that some day we are going to be able to purchase our needs in terms of beer and that kind of thing, when we have parties, in a barrel. I'm always amazed that in this country. . . , Well, there are very few provinces now where you can't do this; this happens to be one of them. You can't buy a small barrel of beer. I've never quite understood why, except that I know obviously that the breweries get upset and the hotels get upset, but also the average citizen has some rights in terms of this.

So before the minister gets up I would also like to ask him, in terms of his role in hearing these appeals.... Was it envisioned that he would, in fact, have the normal appeal process representations from the individuals who were appealing so he would sit there in some... ?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, I see. Well, I can certainly understand the problem there.

The other thing is that 1 would hope that he would have learned something from one of his colleagues who decided, in a moment of what 1 thought was complete insanity, to chair a committee. 1 have in mind your colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , who for some reason got himself into chairing a committee on the budworm spraying thing. It would seem to me that a minister needs to be somewhat removed from that kind of function. You need to be removed from the function in terms of licensing. If you are prepared - and perhaps you might comment on this - to expand both the personnel and the function of the corporate and financial commission, you might think of placing it there.

Now 1 don't think they would get too legalistic. There may be that problem, but that seems to me to be a very good vehicle f or that kind of thing, providing there are double the number of people there. I can't see it happening with all the work they have to do now, but that seems to be an appropriate place to go.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I'm instructed that the basic problem with having kegs of beer for sale is that the breweries have found that the spoilage problem is so great as to make it impractical for them to make that available. Certainly this government has nothing philosophical against such an approach, but I'm told that even in those areas where this has hitherto been available, the breweries are now moving out of it. 1 gather it's the same problem that they have with "near-beer." It spoils too quickly, and since people don't want to buy enough of it to keep the old pot flowing, as it were, the spoilage problem becomes very serious indeed.

Dealing further with the question of appeals, 1 think that if 1 don't hear the appeals on neighbourhood pub licences - that's all 1 would hear them on in the normal course of events - the logical place would be the corporate and financial services. As their role increases, as the member has pointed out earlier this afternoon, obviously their numbers are going to have to increase. There's no question about that. They do a great job as it is in yeoman service. They're already overworked, so obviously we are going to have to do something about that. One thing we cannot do is have these appeals lie waiting to be heard. They have to be heard expeditiously.

MS, R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I'm going to be very brief. Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, 1 want to talk about the milk pouch -- those horrible, awful, dreadful, terrible plastic bags that are being forced on us.

MR. LAUK: Uncivilized!

MS. BROWN: Absolutely! 1 don't drink milk

[ Page 3249 ]

myself. I've never liked the stuff, but other people who do....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes. The other members of my family complain about it. I spend half my life cleaning up. The thing leaks, it bursts, it spills, it does all kinds of terrible things that bottles didn't used to do.

Now in The Vancouver Sun of March 5, which I am sure the minister has read, Mr. Chairman, there is some question about whether the bags actually lot too much light in and that affects the riboflavin -whatever that is! - in the milk. It says that oxidation in the new plastic bags affects the taste more than the nutritional value. But it goes on to say that the actual flavour of the milk could change in three days if it's kept under normal circumstances in a 24-hour convenience store.

The article also points out that the bottles weren't all that great either, but for someone who is responsible for keeping the fridge clean, I certainly found that the bottles were much more convenient than the plastic bags.

What can we do about this, Mr. Chairman? I have received a couple of letters from other people too, complaining about the plastic pouches. Is there anything that the minister can do to reassure us, who believe in clean fridges, that the plastic pouch is not here to stay, but indeed is on its way out?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I personally share the concerns of the member. As a matter of fact 1 frankly hope that the person who invented those little triangles of milk that you particularly get on planes to spill all over yourself fries in eternal perdition.

The fact of the matter is that, firstly, we don't think we have any jurisdiction to deal with this. We feel it is a federal matter. Secondly, it is not a universally held opinion that these things aren't good. You and 1 happen to agree on this rare occasion that we don't like them, but a lot of people do like them. 1 am instructed that in Ontario, where they've had them for years, they cause no problems and people generally accept them.

In answer to the last question you raised, 1 am instructed that colouring has now been added to the package to take care of the light problems that existed hitherto. Frankly, Madam Member, 1 don't think there's anything we can do, and I'm not going to hold out any hope that there's anything we will do.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the minister hearing appeals on pub licences, it certainly is delightful to the opposition that the minister will place himself in that vulnerable and precarious position, but a word to the wise: you chair a committee like that and - what is it about the lion's den and all the rest of the homilies and epithets and epitaphs? - it might be your epitaph politically. Of course that comes as a great delight to this side of the House, but you might reconsider putting that over to a commission or liquor administration. You're going to be charged with all kinds of things. Some of them might even be true.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): I have to agree with the minister and the first member for Vancouver-Burrard about milk in plastic bags. Plastic bags, of course, are made by oil, and milk cartons are made of waste paper, but that's something I suppose one of the environmentalists would champion. I find that by using your method of not patronizing the stores that give away my name on their credit card lists I feel much better, and I feel that I don't patronize the dairies that want me to buy milk in what is described as a plastic bag. There are other pseudonyms for what it actually looks like. I don't purchase my milk that way. The last time I looked there was a choice. I believe you implied that that's what we should do - exercise our choice. I've also cleaned out one refrigerator and that was my last purchase of milk in a bag.

MR. LEVI: I have always thought, Mr. Chairman, that the plastic bag with milk is the worst kind of simulation of the cow's udder that I've seen. It's the most incredible design. I think it's the classic example of what happens in the food industry. This particular plastic process has been used, I think, for six years in Ontario. Now we know that people in Ontario are nowhere near as sophisticated as we are, but it's my understanding that there may be jurisdiction in terms of this. Now I don't know how you keep it out of the province. Presumably the packaging is done here. As I understand it, from making some enquiries through the Ministry of Agriculture, there was consultation with the Milk Board. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) nods. I think that if there is a sufficient pickup of support against this kind of plastic container, then other options might be tried.

Now there is the question of just where do you go? They're saying that the bottles aren't adequate. I sometimes wonder whether our feeling about being so antiseptic is not going to eventually bankrupt us all. I've never quite understood, in terms of that packaged milk, how it can possibly be considered to be something that can be handled. It's the most incredible departure from the usual kind of packaging that you expect to get. Here you find this literal bowl of jelly that you have to deal with. I see the Minister of Agriculture may say something. I'd appreciate his

[ Page 3250 ]

remarks.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): For the benefit of the members, you can still get the cardboard carton in one litre and two-litre sizes. It is the four-litre size, I believe, that comes in three plastic pouches contained inside a plastic bag. I would say the reason the plastic bag or pouch has come on the scene at this time is because of the metric conversion. They converted from quarts into metric and they felt that going into the large size they would go into these three plastic pouches.

With regard to packaging, I can tell you I believe they get 16 litres to a case as opposed to only 12 litres to a case when they had the three-quart or three-litre cardboard carton. So it's efficiency and it cuts down the cost to some extent. It's a programme that all the industry pretty well agreed to. It's standardization.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to now see whether we can prompt the minister into telling us about his wine policy. He was starting to tell us about his wine policy but we didn't quite get there this afternoon. Now I'm sure his wine policy is in no way motivated in the same way that the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's) wine policy is motivated. You know, you take a couple of ounces of sherry and half -a-tablespoon of bran and you'll live until you're 96.

1 understand there are some regulations dealing with the whole question of how much bottle space you can get in terms of local wine manufacture. You have to be able to provide a certain gallonage in order to get on. That appears to be one of the problems in relation to our own wine industry. They've got to produce a sufficient number of gallons to be able to demonstrate that they've sold before they can actually get on to the shelf.

As I understand it when he was talking about wine, there were also some implications in what he said that if we could get people to drink less hard liquor and drink wine, it would do two things: one, it would perhaps reduce the degree of alcoholism or heavy drinking; also, it would aid the B.C. industry. Those are both very worthwhile things.

What I'm wondering about is what is going to happen to the hard-liquor business. I'm not worried about the hard-liquor manufacturers but what I can see is that the price of hard liquor will go down. If wine picks up you may find that hard-liquor prices go down, which is not a bad idea. But what has he got in mind? I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what the minister has in mind in terms of this policy.

If it's preventative in terms of alcoholism, good; if it's attempting to improve our own industry, that's good too. What else has he got? Has he got some kind of hidden agenda or is that basically it?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, frankly, I think the member has basically hit upon the reasons that we have enunciated the policy we have. First of all, I think that as merchandisers we have to try to reflect the tastes of the consumer. There has been a marked change in the drinking habits of the consumer in Canada and in British Columbia over the last few years. This is one of the complaints, of course, that translates itself into a great deal of complaints by the brewers who really, when they articulate their complaints against us as a government, are reflecting what is happening to their industry as a whole. People are not drinking beer the way they used to and they're drinking more wine. This is clearly demonstrated. Secondly, I think it's encouraging to note that rather than wishing to sit around in beer parlors, or in cocktail lounges, people will often have dinner with a couple of glasses of wine and have their alcohol in that way.

I quite agree that one of the cornerstones of our policy was indeed the encouragement not only of the B.C. wine industry, which basically is not B.C. companies but national companies; they are indeed even international companies. But as far as the B.C. grape industry, we had to make a quality decision whether we were going to encourage them or whether we were going to let them fall by the wayside. I think our policy is a right one. I think that what I heard in my travels across the country and what I heard from experts who have come to my office is right: B.C. not only produces some good still table wines but has every opportunity, with encouragement by B.C. citizens and by ourselves, of producing even more. We felt that it was worthwhile to encourage for that reason,

Now we encouraged it in a number of ways, as the member probably knows. We reduced the price by reducing our own take. We reduced the price on imported wines as well but not to the same degree. In addition to that, we've allowed the B.C. wines much better shelf space and much better ability to demonstrate their wares. They're mixed in with other wines and so on. Furthermore, we've allowed the wineries to open up to the public in terms of having a sampling room and advertising that fact.

I have the policy here. I can run down the various things that I gave out by way of a press notice some months ago. I think essentially the two things that would answer your question best, Mr. Member, are that we are indeed trying to reflect the tastes of British Columbians in our wine policy and, secondly, without any question at all, we're trying to encourage local industry.

MS. SANFORD: I have a couple of questions with respect to beer bottle returns. I'm getting complaints particularly from the rural aspects of my riding with respect to the difficulties that some people have in

[ Page 3251 ]

returning beer bottles and getting the 60 cents return which is paid by the liquor store.

Now when people live 80 or 90 miles from the nearest liquor store, they quite often save up their beer bottles in order to return several dozen at a time. But of course the small liquor store in these communities will not accept more than two dozen. Therefore they have to travel another 30 miles or so in order to get to a depot where in fact they can return more than two dozen at a time. But in those cases, they are given only 50 cents a dozen for the beer bottles and they complain to me on quite a regular basis. In some of the areas which are accessible only by boat or by plane or whatever, they are given only about 30 cents in return for their beer bottles. I'm just wondering if there's any way that the minister can see to get around this problem. I understand that the small liquor stores don't have room to store very many empties, but is there no way we can ensure that everyone gets the same return for their beer bottles?

The other question that I would like to ask relates to the grocery stores in rural areas again, some of which are licensed for the sale of liquor. Now based on my conversations with various people within the minister's department, Mr. Chairman, I am told that they've had some problems with licensing stores as liquor outlets and that the ministry at this time is looking at trailer units instead as separate entities with personnel, I suppose, who are trained in liquor sales. But I'm wondering what sort of hope people in rural areas have of getting one of these trailers put in.

I'm thinking, for example, of Malcolm Island. Sointula, on which Malcolm Island is located, has been making some enquiries about the possibility of selling liquor out of their co-op store. They have been turned down and they are considering at this time making a request for a trailer unit. I'm wondering what sort of Possibilities, what sort of hope they have of having this request met. Are you being very strict in terms of setting up these trailer units, or will most communities, if they have some justification for the request, have their request acceded to?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Comox, the problem of beer bottle and beer can returns is a very, very serious and vexing one. It's particularly vexing in the outlying areas, and I'm sure the member would be the first to agree with me that many people live in rural areas in order to escape many of the unhappy aspects of city life. I'm afraid that one of the penalties they pay for that is that the facilities are often not as good as they are elsewhere. It's very difficult for us to provide the service for the return of beer bottles that you can get in the city. As the member has pointed out, the smaller community generally has the smaller store and therefore has much less capacity to handle these returned items.

However, we have been meeting with the breweries on a regular basis and I think we have impressed upon them that they have a much greater obligation than they have hitherto shown to help us handle this problem. The problem with receiving less back than the deposit, I'm instructed, comes from a loophole in the Litter Act which we're trying to overcome - a loophole into which 20 cents seems to fall on regular occasions. We're looking at that.

On the question of agency stores, I can't, of course, deal specifically with Malcolm Island or any other particular place, but I'd be very pleased to hear from the member with any particular problems she may have. The agency stores themselves very quickly become a nightmare. The reason for that obviously is that they're fairly lucrative, and pretty soon what you've done is established the same thing as a taxi licence. Another store comes to town and they want it. Alternatively, they want to buy out this other store which, of course, puts a price on the fact that they have got the right to sell liquor. We don't want that right to be a transferable right and to attract a price. Unfortunately, there's really nothing you can do to stop it because in a lot of the smaller communities the purchaser of a store knows that's the only place that liquor is going to be sold,

We are trying to hold the number of agency stores to the ones we now have and use, as the member has indicated, trailer units instead. We have got guidelines as to where they go, but they are not etched in tablets of stone and we make exceptions. We have to make exceptions in a province like this, and we're very pleased to do so where it's appropriate. If the member would like to bring her concerns to me about Malcolm Island, or any other area in her constituency, I'd be pleased to have Mr. Warnes look at them.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair. I

MS. BROWN: I just wanted to add that as a result of this research I've been doing on the pouch pack, I just noticed the sale of milk in Ontario did go down, according to this report, with the sale of the pouch pack.

Mr. Chairman, I want some guidance from you. Is my understanding correct that we're not supposed to discuss any upcoming legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: That means that I cannot then discuss under this vote the upcoming amendments to the landlord and tenant legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Right. And there is no way then

[ Page 3252 ]

that I can let the minister know my concerns about section 28 (l) to 28 (4) ? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Clerk has advised me that there is a way you can advise the minister. You just send him a letter. However, in Committee of the Whole House it is not appropriate for that to be discussed now. I know, hon. member, you're aware of the rules, so I would appreciate it if you would keep them in mind.

MS. BROWN: Yes, sure, and I wouldn't want to be out of order, but I'm wondering if you would suggest that in the letter I also advise the minister of my concerns about section 32, which gives the minister power to choose the opportunity to opt out of this piece of legislation, and section 33....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must call you to order on this. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that you're out of order.

MS. BROWN: Fine. I appreciate your indulgence and when I write to the minister I'll also mention section 33 (b) , (c) and (d) , Mr. Chairman, which are also my concerns in the upcoming legislation on the Landlord and Tenant Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two to the minister about the wine industry for B.C. I think probably I'm as excited as he is in the development over the last three or four years. There has been some excitement in the interior in our province and some thought that we might even be able to develop vinifera grapes in this province. If in fact we can - and I believe we could - our sun hours are roughly the same as they are in Germany and they're raising some pretty fine vinifera grapes in that country,

I think that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should, when he's thinking in terms of his overall responsibility, think also in terms of a way to see to it that the industry goes beyond the agricultural aspects and that new opportunities are provided for wineries in the province of B.C. Why I suggest that is that I'm becoming somewhat concerned over the fact that some of the larger food chains and some of the larger cartels have managed to take over some of our wineries in this province. I think that it's up to the minister in charge of liquor outlets in this province to see to it that new companies have an opportunity to get cracking in this particular area.

I wouldn't want to downgrade in any way the possibility that we do develop a good wine industry. I think we can do it. I don't agree with that member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , who isn't in his chair at the moment, that we make wine out of old boots in this province. I think we've really improved it a lot and it's got a long way to go if we're to catch up to such places as California. I can remember, and I'm not all that old, when California was kind of smiled upon as a place that really wasn't doing a responsible job of making wine. Now in wine contests California's equalling France. That's not to suggest that our sun hours and our land here are conducive maybe to that high a quality of wine, but it certainly can produce, in my view, a very good vin ordinaire,

I might suggest that a couple of years ago I bought a ton of grapes from the southern end of the Okanagan Valley and they were a hybrid. They weren't vinifera: there's no vinifera ready yet. They were a hybrid. You know, I tested them; I have the ability to test a grape. Those grapes came to 25.5 per cent sugar. Now that's quite sufficient to make an excellent wine, naturally, provided you have a good balance of acids and so on. But I think we should encourage, not only through the Minister of Agriculture but also through the ministry that has charge of the liquor outlets, an opportunity for those smaller wineries that want to get into that to get off the ground and running with the co-operation of the government of our province.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to address you about the concern I have about the whole liquor problem in British Columbia. How much more refreshing it would have been to have heard hon. members discussing tonight how they could reduce the horrendous consumption of alcohol in this country rather than increase it. It is notable that we in British Columbia are among the highest consumers of liquor in Canada and perhaps the highest per capita in North America. I'm not sure of the latter observation, but the fact is that today we are over three gallons per capita. It has almost doubled in 30 years.

MR. LAUK: Three gallons of what?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Of spirits of various kinds. I have no research on this, but these facts are open to anyone. The fact is that we are using large amounts of liquor. We shouldn't be here discussing the return of beer bottles. We shouldn't be here discussing the manufacture of wine. We should be discussing how to reduce the consumption of this deadly brew.

Only yesterday we were observing in this House the shortage of food in disadvantaged countries, when in Canada we allow the use of a million tons of grain in the manufacture of liquor of different kinds. I think this is a terrible loss and a blight upon us. It is impossible for me in any way, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that the drinking age should be reduced, because we noticed that when the drinking age was reduced to 19 years there was a great escalation in the

[ Page 3253 ]

amount of liquor consumed. 1 think we have passed that point; 1 do not think there's any way back there.

But there is something the hon. minister could do, Mr. Chairman, and that is to commence a programme of education through our schools. We do not do enough of that today - not anywhere near enough. We should be on a programme from grade 1 right through the public schools and post-graduate schools of our province.

If we could sell the idea of how deadly this substance is, we would be halfway home in the reduction of the terrible losses that we suffer. Liquor is far more dangerous to our society than drugs. It is the, basis of a great factor in our crime. No one will argue how deadly a substance it is, and yet we talk about civilized drinking. 1 ask you, Mr. Chairman, how it can be civilized when around it all is the aura and the stench of death and destruction.

How can we sit in this House and in any way say or hope that there is a way that we should be doing more drinking? What we should be concerning ourselves with tonight is how we can reduce drinking, and there is a way. There is a way, and the only way we have is not through prohibition nor by changing the drinking age; it's by education.

Mr. Chairman, how do 1 impress this upon the minister? I've rarely heard it mentioned in our schools at any level except in passing comment. 1 think that we must move in this area and move quickly. It must be in the required curriculum of our schools, because the suffering is too high. How many times 1 have heard people say: "Look at the profit the government is making in alcohol." The few miserable dollars we make are paid out 10 times in cash for the loss and suffering in our homes and hospitals, the loss of loved ones, and death and destruction on every side. Yet we have the audacity to talk about civilized drinking. 1 say to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is here tonight that other members should stand in their place and say that we have a job and a responsibility to reduce the amount of drinking in Canada, especially in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: 1 just want to add a word or two, because the member for Dewdney obviously was motivated to get to his feet because of some words I said in the House. 1 can understand that my opposite number, the whip from the Social Credit Party, often does pull his head out of the sand, for a brief moment or two, to make some statements when he feels that I might have offended his sensitive nature. Incidentally, 1 have never stood here and criticized that member for selling high-powered cars that maim and mutilate people on the roads.

But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that if we do have our heads in the sand in respect to this problem 1 think that it's too bad. It turns out that 1 agree with the Minister of Consumer Affairs in this respect, when he says, let's see to it that the drink of moderation is one that is a priority with respect to our development. 1 also go on to say that the last thing we should be doing is providing the kind of screech that we once did and which, 1 think, led to alcoholism to a far greater extent than a decent table wine. There was a day when you couldn't drink the wine in this province unless it was fortified with grain alcohol. As a matter of fact, that's why they were able to term some people who were drinking that product "winos." But you don't find that situation today. The member is quite right: we should be educating people to the areas of great concern with respect to the use and abuse of alcohol. But to ignore the fact that it's here and it's here to stay, 1 think, is just begging the question.

Poor old whip - we'll help you all we can.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you, hon. member. Before the member for New Westminster sat down there were two members standing and perhaps between the two of them they could decide which one would yield to the other.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'll yield to my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1 was about to recognize you due to size, but 1 will recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I'll be very brief. 1 thought that this minister's vote would be through by now but 1....

AN HON. MEMBER: Time! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: The member for Dewdney got up and once again, with a very gentlemanly deportment, displayed a great degree of self-righteous demagoguery, on the point of alcoholism. 1 think he is in the wrong party if he wants to support programmes that are positive in nature to eliminate alcoholism in society. He stated, for example - and this is the kind of trade in mythology which Social Credit members quite often get involved in - that a greater amount of liquor was consumed at the same time that 19-year olds were allowed to drink. That's not true. it just didn't happen. But that doesn't trouble Social Credit members at all; they plunge ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, when the member for Dewdney was addressing the subject or making a speech on alcohol, that did come under the minister's vote; but we are now getting substantially off vote 212 and 1 wonder if perhaps you might get back to vote 212.

[ Page 3254 ]

MR. LAUK: I'm just replying to the lecture of the hon. member for Dewdney. I know he's a good friend of yours, Mr. Chairman, and rightly so.

Well, apart from that, 1 agree that there should be counter-education. That's a very good point and the only one that the hon. member did make that's worthy of support.

Other good points to reduce alcoholism are these: attack the problem of unemployment. 1 know it's an old saw on this side of the House, and the treasury benches are tired of hearing us talk about unemployment. We're not talking about unemployment purely as an economic measure because we want to see great amounts of wealth created in the province. It's a nice ancillary benefit. It allows people to drive fancy, expensive cars, like Corvettes. But unemployment itself is the deadly disease. And if you're talking about chicken and egg, the greater part of the alcoholic problem in this society has to be charged to unemployment and poverty and the social conditions in every jurisdiction in this country that breeds the kind of alcoholism and other diseases of poverty.

I know that Social Credit members don't want to address themselves to those major problems. They like to tinker with symptoms and not with fundamental roots.

The second thing is social conditions generally -the feeling of belonging and the community atmosphere, which is a responsibility not only of those of us in this chamber but people in public life and indeed all citizens to contribute to all people, whatever their station in life and whatever class and whatever occupation. A sense of belonging eliminates that sense of frustration and loneliness that drives people to such things as drugs and alcohol. 1 have always said drugs, which includes alcohol, are the problems which the minister and his government have to address themselves to. To put icing on the cake or whitewash it through various educational programmes is meaningless. Do something about those basic problems in society, added with a good educational programme for youngsters to complement this government's and the past government's ads on alcoholism.

The ads produced by the province have been excellent and they have had an effect. I understand that a certain number of observations were made to indicate that it has had an effect. A thorough evaluation should be done, and 1 think that it would be found that those ads in themselves were positive, Those ads would demonstrate, for example, that people through their social conditioning and lifestyle accept alcohol as an integral part of it. Although 1 don't believe in the conspiratorial theory that large manufacturers of alcoholic beverages have designed our lifestyles in that way so we'll consume alcohol, there's a great deal of truth to the suggestion that we are conditioned at an early age to believe that cocktail parties and other drinking affairs and large beer parlours and cocktail lounges and so on are an integral part of our social lives when indeed they're a dulling, negative aspect in our society. Civilized drinking habits are a long way away until that conditioning can be eliminated.

So the hon. member from Dewdney takes a posture. What we need, if we really and sincerely want to solve this problem, is to deal with the fundamental problems of our society which the New Democratic Party has a complete programme for and which the hon. member from Dewdney's party does not.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'll digress a bit and, complete some of the remarks made by the hon. member from Comox (Ms. Sanford) about the recycling of the beer bottles that contain the alcohol that the government is selling.

In her attempt to suggest some just ways of dealing with the consumer, I would like to add that the government should have an obligation to receive as many bottles as it sells. I just think that's tit for tat or tat for tit, or whatever. If you're going to sell a dozen cases of beer, why not take a dozen cases back? I can't understand the rationale behind selling an unlimited number of cases of beer and then telling the consumer that they can only bring two back. What are they going to do with the remainder?

I know there is a 10 cent difference in the depots that are private depots as opposed to the government outlets, but that isn't fair in my view. I've always felt that that was a bit of a cop-out. Maybe that's just an attempt to help out the private sector and give them an advantage.

There was a time when the argument was that they couldn't operate on the amount they were getting so the government cut down its numbers in order to give the advantage to the private sector. Although they were only paying 50 cents a dozen they would take an unlimited number and that was supposed to be the incentive needed for people with large numbers of bottles to go to these depots. But I don't think it's fair. I think the government should receive as many bottles as people want to bring back. It may mean an extra cost, but it's fair.

On the question of the policies of the liquor administration branch and, more specifically, the policies of the government with respect to the handling of products, the issue that I am about to raise is not one that comes as a surprise to the hon. minister, Mr. Chairman, because we have had an opportunity to talk about the question of South African products before. I must say in all fairness that the minister has been very candid about his views and he has been able to rationalize these to his satisfaction, recognizing that they are his own views

[ Page 3255 ]

and quite contrary to the views that I have tried to express in this House on previous occasions.

Obviously there is a need for dialogue and perhaps more understanding about the problem that we are trying to get before the public. That is: when does a government involve itself in certain political arenas that are considered in the usual sense to be out of its jurisdiction and perhaps out of its responsibility when it reaches an international level, and when does it not?

I feel that there have been a number of ideologies espoused in our society that are not correct. I'd just like to change the situation a bit to talk about how sport has been set aside from the political arena. Many of us will remember the old days of Avery Brundage when he was the chairman of the Olympic committee and how he talked to people about purity and about amateurism. He told them to fight for their nation and to get out there, be pure and not accept any return for their efforts and so forth and so on. The professionals were cleaning up while they were being exploited by the international cartels, the manufacturers of sporting goods and the people who were buying the rights of the activities that they were involved in. Everybody was doing fine except the athlete. Now we are coming to the point where more and more people in different walks of life are beginning LO feel that there are very few things indeed that are not political - very few things indeed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I could just interrupt you for a moment, we are straying somewhat off vote 212. Perhaps we could get back to some matters that really affect the minister's office.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm developing a base for the point I would like to make with respect to the products that will be provided on the shelves of B.C. liquor outlets. The only way I can make the argument is to illustrate the myths that have been built up.

We talk about ourselves as being a sovereign country, foreign and alien to anything else, and independent and autonomous. On the other hand, we find that we are very dependent and very interdependent by state and by nation. Your argument depends on your politics.

I think we've reached the point on the national level, as illustrated most recently by the federal minister of sports, Iona Campagnola, when she finally took the initiative to warn the sports federations throughout Canada that they were not to involve themselves in any way in the sports exchanges with South Africa. She was quite specific, suggesting that because of the abhorrent policies of institutionalized racism that were enshrined in that country - the very foundations of that country were being based on I racism by colour, by accident of birth, with those who were supposedly superior and those who were supposedly inferior - Canada couldn't be implicit and couldn't participate. Now that was only in the area of sports; this is only one minister beginning to take the initiative.

I'm sorry to say that although what the minister was doing was a good thing in the sense that it was a first step, the reasons were economic. It was because of the pressure of the other countries that would be participating, mainly the African countries, in the Commonwealth Games to be held in Edmonton, that she was afraid it would be another economic flop and that we couldn't afford the cost of another disaster economically. For that reason she began to relent.

But Fin not going to quarrel; I think that is valid because it is economics. It's economics, because that's why racism exists in the first place. That's why there is an oppressive society - because of racism. That's why it's possible for us to be able to trade with that country and provide for them certain trade rights and exemptions on tariffs. We have been dealing with them over the years and carrying on because we have an advantage, because of the suppression of the peoples and the inability of them to have unions, to organize themselves and to defend themselves and to have a livable wage.

So it's exploitation and Canada is part of it. This is why 1 say that that's an institutional concept. It would be different if the blacks and the coloureds and the East Indians and all of the other people in South Africa were exploited on the basis of some kind of other medium than race. If it were just straight classism, social status, or economic status, as it is in this country, where the dollar is king.... If the dollar were god in South Africa, we'd probably have a case. But here it is pure and simple racism. It has nothing to do with whether you've got any money or not. In my view, that is the crux of why 1 feel that this government has to make a distinction between what is happening in South Africa and what is happening in other countries.

True, there are bigots and there are oppressive policies and denial of human rights and so forth, as the minister has pointed out, in Russia and in other countries. But at the same time, there is no institutionalized policy of racism, where you can see through the documents of that country - in their legislation; it's in their statutes - that black is here and yellow is there and brown is there and so forth and so on, by colour. There is no other place in the world that 1 know of where that happens, not even in this country with all of the problems that we have. Even though we had a little episode yesterday about racism, we can still stand in this House and we can fight and we can defend ourselves and we have an opportunity before the law. That is not true in South Africa.

That's why 1 say the question of maintaining trade

[ Page 3256 ]

with South Africa - by stocking their supplies on our liquor shelves - is a little bit different, This is why Canada agreed with other nations in 1970 in the United Nations resolution to boycott South Africa. Canada has, at least on paper, admitted that South Africa was a unique organ; different; and has enshrined within it a very cancerous culturation of its people, both white and black. No one won in a society afflicted with that kind of indoctrination, It was a losing situation, even when they were oppressing the majority of the people.

I'm saying that just from the standpoint of our own individual, personal integrity, our own sense of conscience, how can we rationalize that we don't want to get involved, and that what is happening in South Africa is no different from what is happening in any other country in the world, and that we've got problems here and let's fight our own problems and not get involved. I think that is a copout. I would like to feel that although it's only a token gesture, that's true - not stocking South African wines on British Columbia liquor shelves will hardly bring that government to its knees - it will illustrate our disapproval of that country's policies. If that country wishes to persist in denying democratic rights to all of its citizens, and if we are a democratic society, then we should stand on that principle. We should take that leadership.

The previous government took that stand. Under the former Attorney-General, Alex Macdonald, South African products were removed from the shelves for about a year and a half. The Attorney- General of the day had no difficulty making that decision because it was quite well known throughout the world that those activities in South Africa were unique and were an institutionalized kind of oppression of a majority of people by a power-mongering, militaristic, dictatorial system. It was certainly one that could not further the concepts of freedom, trust, justice and equality that we believe in in this society. There was no question that at least we didn't want to deal with them.

Now we had an election on December 11,1975, and the new Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) couldn't wait to replace the South African products on the shelves. Although I don't have the notes, I wish I did because I couldn't believe his rationalization. He had something to say to the effect that he wasn't here to legislate ethics, or something like that; that he was here to let the people make up their own minds. It wasn't the responsibility of this government to tell people what they could or couldn't have. That's what the present Attorney-General said in principle. I don't have the exact quotes, but he said that this government was not here to legislate people's ethics and morality and they could do what they wanted to do.

I'm suggesting that if that is the case, then why does the government have a monopoly on the drinking outlets in the first place? How many people are able to come in and determine what is going to be on the shelves?

When we were the government, we advised everyone that they had full privileges to order alcohol from any country or any state in the world. At the time, the B.C. Liquor Board would do its best to obtain whatever they wished on a personal order, anywhere in Canada or anywhere in the world. At no time were South African products denied an individual who wanted to buy those products on their own, even when the NDP was the government. We were not denying people their right to exercise their personal choice if they wanted to come down and apply for what they wanted through the procedures.

The government of the day had a conscience and a sense of responsibility. It took the leadership, not by denying people their rights but simply by saying that we as a government will not be part of that regime in South Africa. The Attorney-General was speaking on behalf of the government when he suggested that we are not here to legislate in ethics and morality because really what the government was doing was going beyond what it needed to do to ensure people those rights. It was assuming no responsibility itself but simply copping out.

The responsibility for the liquor administration was turned over to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who so far seems to be of the same opinion as the Attorney-General, although he indicates that his concerns are the same as mine and the same as the former government's in the sense he too deplores what is happening in South Africa. But 1 wonder whether the minister, Mr. Chairman, really has taken the time to study what is happening. 1 know he is very well learned and he is knowledgeable about many things. Many of us are knowledgeable about many things, but we don't always have the time to study some of the things that we should study.

Here is a very brief statement: "An Alternative Policy for Canada Toward South Africa." It's called "The Black Paper" and 1 suppose it has as much weight as a White Paper. It says:

"The intrinsic nature of apartheid.

"While tyranny and political oppression are familiar evils, apartheid is more reprehensible because its oppression is based not only on different political ideologies and the lust for power exercised by a minority but also centrally and fundamentally on the criterion of race.

"The concept that a man's every facet - his legal, economic and social position - is determined by his colour is so repugnant to civilized society that the system and the states which practise it have been deemed a universal

[ Page 3257 ]

concern.

"John Voerster in 1963 remarked well over 14 years ago: 'We want to keep South Africa white.' Keeping it white can only mean one thing, namely white domination. Not leadership, not guidance, but control supremacy."

He was an architect of the system and he still exists.

Now if that happened to be a corporation in South Africa that was practising racist policies, we could pick on the corporation. But this is a country, this is a government, this is a way of life, this is institutionalization, this is grossly and vastly different from anything else that is happening anywhere else in the civilized world. Even with all of our racism in the United States and in Canada, there is nothing on the books to my knowledge today that denies a person an opportunity to go before the courts and have a legal chance to defend himself as a human being. That's the difference. It's possible at least in our society, although there are many individuals who are products of a racist system and who are still showing ramifications of that in their own personalities. But that's a personal thing and we can't change personalities that way. But we certainly can make sure that all the different personalities have a chance under the law, and that isn't the case, in my view, with the situation in South Africa.

This is why I'm raising the question again to ask this government, to ask this minister how he reconciles the move, which he did not initiate but which he did not reverse either - it was made by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) - to return South African products to the liquor stores in British Columbia when he only had to just leave it alone. The former government had taken the initiative and done what incidentally is supported, 1 would suggest, by three-quarters of the people in British Columbia.

1 have documented this. 1 have received the letters and kept tabs for about four years. I've had people writing me. You'd be amazed at the people who are very dissatisfied with that type of attitude. Many people in British Columbia want to see the government show some moral leadership, want to show some commitment toward humanity, want a government that is willing to take its chances on people and on justice, and to illustrate by its own example that not everything is in dollars and cents. There are some things to be weighed in the common resource, or the cheapest resource and the most abundant resource of humanity.

It is a simple idea that you can sell the belief that a system of justice can work, and does work, and is not dependent on economic considerations but on humanitarian considerations. Then is when you will get the kind of things that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was suggesting about not having to make laws to encourage people to participate and avoid overindulging in alcohol, because you will then have found a way to start educating people. The problems with the idea of educating and giving people encouragement come from inconsistency, saying one thing and doing something else; talking about justice and not doing it; suggesting to people on the one hand that they should practise restraint, control themselves and show some control when they are out in the evening drinking and having a good time, and at the same time telling them we are going to lower the price on certain products so they can drink more. On the other hand we are going to give them seatbelts so they don't kill themselves, and we're making more money than ever on the revenue from alcohol.

It's very strange and very difficult to convince people that the government is sincere. People get the idea that all we're doing is playing politics, and we're not prepared to sacrifice a political advantage for humanitarian considerations. As long as we do that I'm afraid you're going to have these kinds of presentations from members like myself who will be standing up and trying to find a way to get into the common sense of all of us.

I'm sure that most people, like myself, have thought about the things that I'm thinking about. Many of them have thrown their hands up and said: "What's the use?" It's fine for you to talk about all those high deals and principles, but reality is reality. This is a dog-eat-dog society. While you're talking about this, that and the other, we've got to get the revenue so that we can carry on our programmes.

There's the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) over there shaking his head, as though he thinks that I'm giving him a snow job or something. It wasn't that long ago that you were having trouble, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, talking about the spruce budworm. You were ready to spray the forest on the short-sighted concept that you were going to improve the annual yield of forests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I've allowed you extremely wide latitude on this debate. The Chair has been exceedingly generous with not calling you to order on several points. However, I would really appreciate it if you would get back to something a little more relevant to the vote that we're under at the time.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 agree with you that this is an unusual approach to a very specific problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: It sure is.

MR. BARNES: I feel that the comments being made by whoever it was on the Social Credit side who said: "It sure is. . . ." Is it the whole bunch? All of you feel that what I'm saying is irrelevant? Let's hear

[ Page 3258 ]

a "yea" or hold up your hand, all of the people who disagree with what I am saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask you to address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm not one to lump everybody into one basket, but I wouldn't be surprised if a number, at least, did feel that what I'm saying is irrelevant.

MR. LLOYD: On a point of order, I have to agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the member has been wandering all over the moose pasture again here. I think we're on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' department and we should stick with it. If he hasn't got anything to say, let him sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I have made that point clear to the member.

MR. BARNES: The moose pasture - that's what he calls it! I don't know what the member means by "moose pasture"; we'll have to define his terms. Maybe he's describing the milieu from which he comes; I don't know.

But that's fine. As long as he wants to couch his words in ambiguity, then he means that he doesn't want to be held responsible for what he's saying, and that's fine with me.

But I'm trying to suggest to the House that there does come a time when we should take the leadership in our policies and we should try and give the kind of leadership that people want. I think we're afraid of people as politicians. It's understandable that we want to avoid becoming unpopular. I think we would be quite surprised. I wrote a letter recently to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs suggesting to him that he would be doing a great service to the public of British Columbia if he followed the example of Iona Campagnolo in doing something similar as a gesture to indicate this government's disagreement with the policies in South Africa.

I still feel that he might want to consider that, not on a personal basis but on the basis of representing the people. If you don't feel confident in making such a move, refer to the public and find out what they think, because I'll tell you that legally you have no duty to stock the alcohol of South Africa in order to give people their just due and their right, because they can do it anyway. They have been able to do it long before you put the alcohol back on the shelf.

There is no one who has been denied the right to purchase South African products if they want it. In fact, a strange thing happened. When this government came in there was an awful lot of South African wine on stock that strangely appeared. I don't know whether it never left or what happened but it was there awful fast. I just wonder whether the government is sincere in saying that it is concerned about giving people their just rights or whether the government is exemplifying its own personal opinions and its own views, not a matter of justice, Mr. Chairman.

I don't intend to forget the subject but I realize that it's one of those subjects that's very debatable, because there's a lot of interpretation as to how a person sees the argument, what's political and what isn't political, what the jurisdiction should or shouldn't be. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, in closing that the athletes of the world finally realized that Avery Brundage was wrong, that they are political. I think that Mayor Drapeau of Montreal realizes too that sometimes you have to play a little politics to pay for those things. Certainly the promoters know it. They capitalize on sports, and do it very well. Sports are so popular that people are paying to wear the label, like Adidas or some other brand name, on their clothes because it's big business. Athletes are saying: "Hey. Let us in on some of this action."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leniency. I'll tell you that all I want is just a second like you always give all members to wind up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am sorry. The red light is on and you have had 30 minutes, which is the time under standing orders. If you wish to speak again in this debate I must recognize the next member.

HON. MR. MAIR: I do want to answer some of the questions raised because, with all due respect, some of them were asked so long ago I may forget what I was going to say. I do want to deal with the points raised by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) because he did send me a letter and I did reply to it and I think it's only proper that the committee ought to know the views of the government on the matter that he talked about.

Going back to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , I think that the one point I should make is that I agree wholeheartedly with his optimism about the wine industry. I want to make just this one point. When I went back to Toronto to look at the question of liquor distribution and their wine policy, particularly in Ontario, I was very heartened to learn that their expert - a Czechoslovakian gentleman, whose name escapes me, who runs their specialty wine shop - was very complimentary, not only of the

[ Page 3259 ]

still B.C. table wines we have, but of our opportunity in the future to improve these wines.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, 1 think we have every reason to be optimistic, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): That's what 1 said; he's right on that.

HON. MR. MAIR: The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) raised the obvious question of education and alcoholism and so on. 1 would like to refer him, if 1 may, to the statement 1 made on March 31, indicating that a major educational and advertising campaign would be launched by the government. 1 want the committee to know that a cabinet document is on my desk for submission to my colleagues in this regard. It will be taken to them as soon as it's convenient, which will be in the very near future,

1 quite agree with the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that the root causes of alcoholism are not going to be cured by education. Unemployment and other social ills are certainly a major contributing factor. 1 don't think that anybody doubts that.

Dealing with the first point raised by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , 1 think we could take back all of the beer bottles that people buy if they bring them back immediately after they consumed them. The problem is that they store them up in their basements forever and a day and then come back with truckloads. This is only natural; we all do the same thing. Nobody drinks a case of beer and puts it in his car and takes it back. We all sort of forget about it and then want to get rid of them when our wives or somebody says: "Clean out the basement.---But this causes a real problem. 1 want the committee to know that we have been in active negotiations with the breweries to try to get them to co-operate more - they've agreed that they will - in providing more and more depots by which we can get rid of this problem.

I'd like to deal briefly with the very serious issue that the second member for Vancouver Centre raised. I'm sure that that member was not implying in any way that our wine policy with respect to South Africa reflected any opinion of mine adverse to his own on the horrible question of apartheid and discrimination and things of that nature. 1 don't think that 1 or anybody else have to stand in this House to indicate the revulsion we feel at those sorts of policies and what they mean to blacks - "coloured, " as they're called - and East Indians, and this sort of thing in South Africa. It's appalling. It's something which all of us stand four-square against.

The question I must address myself to is whether or not I can in any way overcome that problem by a change in liquor policy. Now the second member for Vancouver Centre has, in a very clear and articulate way and with great justification, set forth his own views. I don't disagree with the views, save and except that I don't think that a government policy restricting the sale of South African wines is going to help. If I thought that by depriving people in South Africa of employment through not buying South African products I was going to in any way advance the cause of the black Or any other disadvantaged person, I'd be the first person to recommend taking those products off the shelves. If I thought that by refusing to list Russian vodka I could improve the plight of the Jew in Russia, I would be the first one to take vodka off the shelves. If I thought by taking Bulgarian wine off the liquor stores shelves I could improve the lot of political prisoners in Bulgaria, then I'd be the first one to take it off.

If you can convince me that I will in any way assist those unfortunate people that are being dealt with in such an unfair manner, then I'll be the first one to do as you wish. But I'm not convinced that will be the case. I'm rather convinced the opposite will be the case. I'm rather convinced that if we were to fail to buy products from those countries, the people who are most disadvantaged by reason of the tyranny would be even more disadvantaged,

Now I may be wrong; you may be right. That's a matter of opinion. But I don't want you to think because my opinion is not the same as yours, that we in any way support, tacitly or otherwise, the policies of South Africa or any other nation that oppresses any minority of any colour, creed or persuasion.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's comments, and I'd like to say I'm pleased to follow my good friend, the second member for Vancouver Centre. Apart from his most serious comments, which I'm sure we all listened to, I would refer to his question of whether we were in the moose pasture or whether we were talking about moose milk. And on that vein I would remind him of the many happy hours that we've shared when we were traveling on the health, education and welfare committee about this province when others went out on the evening. We used to have some very long and very serious discussions with some good old moose milk - that's another name for B.C. cow's milk - on the trip. At one point he even admitted that if I didn't stop talking to him, he was going to become a Social Crediter, and this really upset him.

I hadn't intended to speak on this debate but in listening to the comments made by the members during the evening, which have been more in a

[ Page 3260 ]

philosophical vein and a more general vein, I thought it would be more relevant to read into the record some of the figures that have just been made available by the Alcohol and Drug Commission. They relate very directly to the discussions that the members have been having. The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) didn't choose to use the figures, and I think while they're perhaps in part known to some of us, they're not totally known to the public. And even some of these may come as a shock to us as well as to them.

They did a survey on who drinks in British Columbia in 1970 and 1971 in three B.C. cities. Some of the answers are most startling. Approximately 75 per cent of the population 15 years of age and over drink more often than once a month. And 22 per cent of the population - that is, this population of 15 years and over - are heavy drinkers. They class a heavy drinker as a person who consumes more than one and a half drinks every day on the average.

This brings into context a misconception which is often held - that a person who is suffering from alcoholism is measured on the basis of the quantity he drinks, when in fact the quantity is not always that relevant. It's the consistency with which he or she drinks that often measures their alcoholic problem. I remember once, after teaching alcoholism at the Mayo Clinic in the United States, coming home and startling some of my very dear relatives by advising them they were alcoholics because they consistently had two or three drinks before dinner. I might add I wasn't invited back for two or three months either. So I think this is something that will startle many of us in British Columbia who say: "Well I don't have an alcohol problem, but I do enjoy my drinks every night."

The average monthly consumption of absolute alcohol was 10.5 ounces for women, but they were outdone at 24.5 ounces for men. It was interesting to note that single people were more likely to admit that they had an alcohol problem than couples, This might be well attributed to the fact that couples will share their problem between themselves or often become companion drinkers and stimulate each other's problem on a dependency basis. I might add that that's my own philosophy to those figures.

I think that will come as a shock to many people who tend to feel - and some of this was reflected in the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard's statements - that alcoholism and overconsumption is essentially a problem of the lower-income levels. They found that progressively higher rates of regular and heavy drinking were associated with increasing income levels and that this held true for both sexes.

MR. LEVI: On a point of order, I don't mind if the member keeps referring to me, but it's the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) . There is a difference in size.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is very well taken.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the second member for Vancouver Centre. I'm sorry. I think I used his correct association when we were discussing our moose-milk trips.

Other figures that they have were significant. When you compare the amount of alcohol consumed in British Columbia and Canada - the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) referred to this and he might be pleased to have the figures - absolute alcohol consumed in 1974 in B.C. was 5,266.6 gallons as opposed to 41,170.7 in all of Canada. The gallons per capita work out to 4.03 gallons for British Columbia as opposed to 3.36 gallons for the rest of Canada.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

The average drinker in B.C. consumed 27.4 bottles of liquor, 23.4 bottles of wine and 38.5 dozen beer during 1974. Again, this reflects those figures of age 15 and over.

The impact of this in terms of alcoholism in industry is quite interesting. While they admitted it was impossible to determine all the costs attributable to alcoholism, they did come to the conclusion in Ontario that the following figures applied: alcoholism contributed to 10 per cent of the direct costs for running general hospitals, 15 per cent of the direct costs for running mental hospitals and 20 per cent of family benefits, all of which are attributable to alcoholic bases.

At least 30 per cent of aid to Children's Aid Societies is attributable to alcohol problems. The estimated number of alcoholics in British Columbia in 1974 was 83,600, as opposed to Canada with 550,400 people who are alcoholics.

What is most startling and should be incorporated in the educational programme is how many people die from cirrhosis of the liver attributable to alcoholism. I think most of us are aware that there appears to be a startling increase in this illness, particularly in younger people, and the figures bear this out. In 1970 in British Columbia, 246 people died of cirrhosis of the liver; in 1974, there were 410 people, an increase of approximately 67 per cent, While I don't know the direct population increase in British Columbia - I would hazard it as being 12 to 14 per cent - this is a very shocking figure and one to which we should pay attention.

The cost to industry itself in terms of the number of employees in industry suffering from alcoholic problems in British Columbia is estimated at being 5 to 8 per cent of the total work force. This was a figure given in 1968 and they suggest the figure today

[ Page 3261 ]

has increased to approximately the 7 to 12 per cent area. They estimate the annual loss to a company for alcoholic reasons is 25 per cent of the alcoholic's annual salary. Compared to non-alcoholic employees, the alcoholic employee will be absent 16 times more often, have two and a half times as many long absences, which would constitute eight days or more, and have a general accident rate of 3.6 times greater. They will receive sickness benefits three times more often, file five times more compensation claims and function at 60 to 70 per cent of their work potential.

As far as impaired driving is concerned, I found these figures quite startling. We tend to blame the young people off the cuff. Their figures reveal that males are heavily over-represented in driving fatalities; they account for 85 per cent of all the driver fatalities age 16 and over. At least 38 per cent of all fatally injured drivers were legally impaired, But this is the startling point: drivers aged 30 to 34 were the most frequently impaired. Here again we have been laying a heavy load of responsibility on the young impaired driver, when in fact these figures might well cause us to stop and think twice,

The cost of impaired drivers to British Columbia is well worth noting. Thirty million dollars worth of property damage in B.C. in 1974 was caused by motor-vehicle accidents in which alcohol was a contributing factor. In 1974,541 persons were jailed for offences under sections of the Criminal Code dealing with impaired driving.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt you just long enough to remind you that under this... ?

MR. LEA: Could you repeat that?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, if you're interested, Mr. Member,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS, JORDAN: Well, the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) seems to think these figures are a joke. That's his prerogative, but I think these figures are very relevant to tonight's debate. Certainly they are figures that we should be aware of if in fact we're serious....

MR. LEVI: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely these facts might be better dealt with under the Health estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just calling the member to order. However, perhaps the member did not hear the Chair. The point of order is this: material presently being covered by the member in her debate may be better covered under the Minister of Health at a time when we're talking about alcoholism. The minister whose salary we are presently debating is responsible only for the control of distribution of alcohol through the liquor administration branch. 1 think that perhaps the debate should be limited to that sphere.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 1 appreciate your statements. 1 only took the liberty of introducing these into the record tonight because they did in fact back up, on a statistical basis, the very general statements and the total content of tonight's debate. Except for a few figures, 1 am finished. I'll bring those up under the Health minister's debate. 1 thank you for this leniency.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): 1 just have two matters which 1 would like to raise with the minister. 1 know that he has quite a number of questions that have been raised and which he wants to respond to. First of all, 1 would appreciate it if the minister would comment on the policy regarding restaurants and dining rooms which now hold wine and beer licences, and on the policy which applies regarding obtaining hard liquor licences for that kind of institution as well. I'm thinking more particularly of restaurants and dining rooms that are in more isolated areas of the province where facilities and outlets are not very plentiful.

The other matter 1 wanted to raise with the minister is a bit more complex. I'm not sure whether the minister would find it within the purview of his department to deal with it or not. But it's my understanding that under the minister's jurisdiction resides the responsibility for preventing unethical business practices, gouging of the public - either through monopoly or combines and so on, although 1 know that the federal Combines Investigation Act covers that. 1 wonder if, within the framework of the minister's interest, he considers government agencies to be covered also in terms of meeting the standards applicable to the private sector. 1 wonder if the same standards apply to Crown corporations, because we've heard a lot of talk about ripoffs by various unethical operators who occasionally happen throughout the province and victimize innocent people.

Quite honestly and sincerely, the most scandalous one that has come to my mind over the past number of years is the situation where the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority has used its power of expropriation to seize private land, particularly in the Columbia Valley and in the Arrow reservoir. They have expropriated land in excess of what was found to be essential to the project that they were purchasing the land to accommodate - namely, the reservoirs. In many instances - and it's been widely

[ Page 3262 ]

covered in the press and I can certainly document many cases within my own constituency - they have compensated the landowners by about $200 or $250 per acre. They have held that land for a period of years, found it to be excess to Hydro's needs, and have now offered - which is a requirement of the agreement - to sell back portions of that same acreage to the landowner from whom it was expropriated, and guess what they're charging? In some cases, 1,000 per cent and more than the price at which they compensated the private landowner. They paid in compensation for the arbitrary expropriation $200 an acre and are charging up to $2,000 an acre, in some cases, to the people to buy back the land that they had arbitrarily seized from them.

In my view, this is the most scandalous, reprehensible conduct and sharp, unethical business practice that 1 have witnessed in this province. 1 find it very difficult to understand how the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs can persuade the private sector to have regard for ethical business practices unless the government is prepared to demonstrate that they will set a standard and an example to the private sector, and this is certainly no kind of example to set. It's a case of this monolithic company having the arbitrary power to seize the land and to expropriate. Certainly they have to compensate, but the reality is, Mr. Chairman....

MR. LLOYD: On a point of order, 1 wonder if that member could relate how that has to do with the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry, Mr. Chairman. We're wandering all over the place again here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your point of order.

MR. KING: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, this is a legitimate business, selling a service in the province of British Columbia, and 1 would certainly appreciate it if the minister would look at this practice. 1 would say also that it is one of the things that is giving the Crown corporation absolutely a terrible name in the province. It's offensive to the people and it's obviously and patently unjust. It's obviously a business practice backed up with a statutory power of expropriation which allows that agency to speculate on the real estate market, which is not the stated function of their enterprise to begin with.

1 would certainly appreciate having the minister and his department examine this situation and give me an opinion, if he would, as to whether or not authority resides within the ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to regulate this kind of reprehensible situation that is going on in the province.

MR. LEA: Dealing with the pricing of alcohol sold through government liquor stores, I think we could do a lot to curb excessive drinking and alcoholism strictly through the pricing. I think it could be done fairly and equitably but the prices would have to go way up from what they are now. I know that if the minister brought in a bill or regulations to do what I suggest, he would be putting the political courage of all of us on the line. But I really believe that of all of us, on every side of the House. I think it might be worthwhile testing our political courage because I'm just going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me that those people who consume alcohol in our society should have to pay the rate of what it costs society.

The Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) told me a few days ago, in his estimates, that the Social Credit government believes in marginal economics and that we fuzzy-headed socialists believe in average economics. I think we should get down to marginal economics, and I think this should appeal to the Social Credit government, Mr. Chairman.

I think that it is calculable. In other words, you can figure out exactly - or almost exactly - what it costs society for the consumption of alcohol. We know, for instance, that the greater portion of our health care services in this province can be directly attributable to the use of alcohol.

We know that the majority of our car accidents, and the insurance claims that revolve around those car accidents, are attributable to alcohol. We know alcohol is responsible for a great deal of the money that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) pays out, because there are family situations that have come about through the use of alcohol. If we were to take into consideration as a Legislature those costs the taxpayers have to pick up because of the consumption of alcohol, and if we were to bring the price of alcohol up to a commensurate revenue with those expenditures that we have to pay out, then we would save the taxpayers a great deal of money they shouldn't be paying out and we would be putting the charge directly and properly where it belongs - on those people who consume alcohol.

I believe it is possible these days with computers to figure out to a very fine degree what it costs society in terms of tax dollars to pay for all of those things that are brought about because of alcohol use: health care, automobile accidents, money through the Human Resources department to pay for symptoms in our society that have been brought about by the use of alcohol.

I would like to have the minister's view as to whether he agrees that those costs that taxpayers have to pick up because of alcohol use should not be paid for on a direct user charge. The government says that the ferries should operate that way and all

[ Page 3263 ]

Crown corporations should operate that way - they should at least break even. I agree. But I'd like to carry it one step further and say to the minister that if they are going to be consistent in government and make all of us put our political courage on the line, then that same policy should follow through to the liquor branch of government.

MR. LAUK: Forty dollars for a bottle of LCB rye!

MR. LEA: It would probably cost a great deal more than $40 for a bottle of rye if we were to pay a direct user charge for what it costs society. I would like to hear the minister's views on that.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I must say I did not realize there were so many temperance workers within the precincts.

I'd like to deal very briefly if I may with the points raised by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , The difficulty with changing wine and beer licences in the outlying, sparsely populated districts is that most of them are highway-oriented establishments. Going back before the administration and, I think, before your administration, it was always felt most unwise to put hard liquor outlets on highways unless it was absolutely necessary. It was a practice to be discouraged.

As far as B.C. Hydro is concerned, I think the member knows that is not part of my responsibility. I rather suspect that if you thought back, you would realize that the enabling statute exempts B.C. Hydro from all Acts of this Legislature except where specifically stated that they are covered. This means, of course, that the statutes that I administer - the Trade Practices Act and so on - simply do not apply to B.C. Hydro. I can't on a personal basis disagree with the member, however. I don't see any reason why these statutes do not apply to B.C. Hydro. I would hope that with your help, or perhaps you with my help, can prevail upon the minister in question to bring such legislation to the House.

I don't know how serious the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was, but I'm going to assume that he was serious. I think that the first point to be made is that our alcohol prices in British Columbia are indeed among the lowest in the country. I wish, however, that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) were here to speak for Scotch whiskey drinkers, because every time we raise the price of Scotch we sure hear from him.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Right on!

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, I forgot the kid.

I think a case can be made for a higher cost of alcohol in order to cover the social cost. But I think we must also bear in mind it isn't too long before you reach a case of prohibition by economic sanction. And what you're going to do if you make whiskey $40 a bottle, as you suggested, or $40 or $50 or whatever it may be, is to simply bring back the still, bring back the bootlegger, bring back the rum-runner, bring back the illicit sale of alcohol. We'll be right back where we started from: the same amount of alcohol with more enforcement problems attached to it.

However, I do think there is some middle ground. I think the social cost of alcohol has got to be borne out by the public purse, and I think a strong case can be made for higher prices of alcohol for those purposes. We're now looking specifically at a surcharge with respect to our education programme. A great deal of money could be raised by a simple raise of 10 or 15 or 20 cents a bottle of whiskey. So I'm not saying we're going to do that, but I'm saying we are looking at it. I think that the point is well taken, at least to that degree.

MR. LEA: I remember when there was consistency in government, and the minister's remarks are not consistent with other ministers in charge of other areas of government, such as the Minister of Transport. He raised the price of ferry fares and the use of those ferries fell off. Right? So maybe people are getting their own rowboats and coming across, but that didn't seem to deter the Minister of Transport from raising those prices.

I want to assure the minister that I am serious. I was talking to a nurse who spends a great deal of her weekends in the emergency operating room at a local hospital here in Victoria. She says she can go weekend after weekend after weekend and never see a patient who isn't in there because of alcohol.

The person in charge of the statistics when I was Minister of Highways asked me what percentage of fatalities in Manitoba over a six-month period could be directly related to alcohol. He wanted me to take a guess. So I thought, well, I'll go high because obviously he's leading up to something. So I said 70 per cent. He said: "No. For that six-month period it was 100 per cent." One hundred per cent of all fatalities in the province of Manitoba over a six-month period were all directly related to alcohol.

I just don't know if what the minister says is the truth, Mr. Chairman. We can't put the price up too high because people would be making their own. I think that's a problem that would have to be faced on another day. But I really believe that if we're going to deal with alcohol in a manner that doesn't pay for the damage it does, then what we're doing is asking taxpayers to subsidize the use of alcohol.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I'm going to bring up a couple of items pertaining to alcoholism which would seem to be in conflict, and that is the

[ Page 3264 ]

dilemma that we find ourselves in when we do talk about the government which finds itself in the position of being the dispenser of the most popular drug, stimulant, depressant and such in use in North America.

First of all, I'd like to point out the effect that some of the changes in liquor permit regulations have brought about. For years the Nelson hockey booster club has had some liquor sales, certainly not at every game but on fairly infrequent occasions. It was my understanding last winter that they were unable to have what they called "mixers." While the game was in progress - between periods - people would go out and have maybe one or two drinks, and at the conclusion of the game there would be a dance and a mixer.

It's my understanding that people would have to sort of register as a club. They would have to be recognized and be sold memberships in a club and be members of that club in order to participate.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I guess we'll have to take this up maybe tomorrow. I'll ask for some answer on this tomorrow, but I would like to point out that the booster club provided hockey scholarships for post-secondary education. Many people over the years received degrees as a result of these scholarships. This was a very worthwhile endeavour. It was very severely curtailed last year.

It not only curtails that, but one of the forms of entertainment - senior amateur hockey - in the Kootenay area. It is the last senior amateur league in British Columbia. It threatens Nelson, which has been able to offer this alternative. I'm sure that this must be repeated many, many times throughout the province.

I know of other situations in the Nelson area with similar difficulties in getting permits for social and worthwhile events. So I would like the minister to explain that and what his experience is with the new events.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.