[ Page 5465 ]

CONTENTS

Address by J. Spellman, Governor, State of Washington –– 5465

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Farm equipment tax. Mrs. Wallace –– 5467

Market survey on Energy film. Mr. Lea –– 5468

Mrs. Dailly –– 5469

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman)

On vote 49: liquor control and licensing branch –– 5469

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lea

Mr. Levi

Division on an amendment

On vote 50: Corporate and Financial Services Commission –– 5483

Mr. Levi

Division on an amendment

On vote 52: building occupancy charges –– 5484

Mr. Levi

Division on an amendment

On vote 53: computer and consulting charges –– 5484

Mr. Levi

On the amendment to vote 53 –– 5484

Mr. Levi

Division on the amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5484

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Tabling Documents

Superintendent of insurance annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5487

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the lights in the chamber have been raised to their present intensity so that some of the ceremony which will take place in the chamber in a few moments may be recorded on film. Does that meet with your approval? It is so ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On this special occasion I would also ask leave to have question period suspended until later this afternoon.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Today it is a distinct pleasure for me on behalf not only of the government, but all people in British Columbia, to welcome to this chamber a delegation from the government in Washington state, our friendly neighbour to the south. In introducing the members of the delegation, and of course in anticipation of an address by Governor Spellman, I would just like to reinforce the long friendship that has been displayed by our two peoples for these many years. In fact, many people think that cultural lines — as well as geographic and demographic lines — run north-south on this continent which we share. Nevertheless, because they do, it allows us that great depth of international understanding which makes us best friends. In this morning's work we were able to conclude two agreements. One was an updating of the emergency measures agreement — first signed as a letter of intent in 1969, then as an agreement in 1972 — making it meet more fully the modern requirements of such an agreement. The second was updating the amount of dollars contained in a forest fire suppression agreement that I first had the opportunity as Premier to sign with a former Governor of Washington state, Dan Evans. Today we're pleased that these two further updatings of agreements can be dealt with between us in this positive way.

Let me now introduce to the Legislative Assembly members of the delegation travelling with the Governor who are in the gallery: Hon. Ralph Munro, Secretary of State; Mr. Donald Moos, Director of Ecology; Mr. Richard Schrock, Director of Commerce and Economic Development; Mr. Richard Allison, Chief of Staff; Mr. Paul O'Connor, Press Secretary; and Mr. David Stephens, Energy Affairs Adviser. I might also advise that Mr. John R. Sharpe, Consul-General of Canada in Seattle, Washington, and Mr. Robert W. Moore, Consul-General of the United States of America in Vancouver, British Columbia, are here today.

Before introducing Governor Spellman, I might introduce perhaps the most important part of the delegation for Washington state, certainly accompanied by the most important person connected with my household: Mrs. Lois Spellman, wife of Governor Spellman, and my wife Audrey.

Now it is my pleasure to introduce to the assembly the Governor of the State of Washington, Governor John Spellman, recently elected. We're looking forward to a long and fruitful relationship, Governor, with your administration and with you personally. Governor, I want the members of this assembly to welcome you warmly today.

GOVERNOR SPELLMAN: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, it is my honour to accept your neighbourly invitation to visit Canada's most beautiful province. Today I bring you four million handshakes from friends and neighbours in Washington state.

While this is my first foreign trip as Governor of the State of Washington, it is impossible for me to feel foreign here. Rather, I feel very much at home. Home, it is said, is where the heart is. Indeed, I have been coming to British Columbia since I was just a little kid. My father used to bundle me and our dogs into a car and bring us up to field trials. Memories of those childhood junkets to this beautiful area will never fade. I might add that both of Lois's parents are from New Brunswick. I understand that there's some significance in that at this point. She spent a good deal of her childhood visiting there.

I have to confess that I have an active fantasy life too that involves your home province. As a general rule, in most circumstances, I would rather be fishing. In particular, I would rather be fishing for the wily Kamloops trout on Hihium Lake. For years I have kept a Hihium Lake pamphlet in one of the drawers of my desk in my office. Whenever the headaches of bureaucracy have become too oppressive, I have reached into my desk drawer, pulled out that pamphlet and daydreamed about angling for those wily Kamloops trout. You should have seen some of the beauties that I caught from my desk in Seattle. I haven't had much free time behind my desk in Olympia to do any of that fishing yet, but I assure you I shall.

British Columbia and the state of Washington both share a unique corner of the world. Your people and our people really have it all. Our commonality is far greater than our differences. It is normal and natural for friends and neighbours who share a common fence to fall into occasional dispute, sometimes even with a bit of yelling across that fence. But there are few things in life so satisfying as making up; a handshake of reconciliation across that common fence is particularly warming.

So let me today, together with you, mutually resolve that our bygones will indeed be bygones. I think the former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Sam Rayburn, put it well: "If we must disagree, let us do so without being disagreeable." So let us resolve to refrain from becoming disagreeable when we face future potential disagreements. We have too much in common to let our minor spats stand between us. We have a common past and a common future.

Long before Captain George Vancouver "discovered" our area, the indigenous Indian tribes lived in peace and commerce in this area. Before the fence was erected between the two countries, with a different flag on either side of it, the single flag of the Hudson's Bay Co. flew over the whole region. Of course, then, as today, we still share that famous common rain.

The rest of the nation — both nations — envy us our mutual environment, our lifestyle and our metropolitan areas, which are among the most desirable and most acclaimed on the face of the earth. As you know, tourists flock to this beautiful location from the corners of the earth, and certainly from the corners of our national maps, to be awed by our mountains, our scenic islands and our fishing. Each of us knows that that favourable environment and quality of life must not be compromised, for this is the stuff upon which both our spirits and our economies thrive. It is these things —

[ Page 5466 ]

the quality of life and the environment — which make it possible for us to be productive on the job, while giving special meaning to our lives away from work; and which, as we and you are discovering every day, attract new industry and economic life to our region.

Preserving our environment makes economic sense. My state and your province have both drawn forth, from arid regions east of the mountains, agricultural gardens of Eden, nourished by giant irrigation projects. We have demonstrated that we can indeed improve upon nature. Our separate economies are based upon nature — both supported by the pillars of timber, fishing and agriculture.

My state and your province thrive on each other. We are each other's best tourist customers. We have traditionally been best trading partners, with nearly $30 billion of trade between us in the last decade. The citizens of British Columbia are by far the number one investors in Washington state's economy. We're bullish on each other, and we sometimes suffer together economically when the downturns slow building and timber use, and when our fishermen have particularly bad years.

But we do have some differences. Some of them can be solved through bilateral negotiations between Ottawa and Washington, D.C. We do, however, have a regional agenda. It includes tankers in our precious waters and the costs and the consistency of the supply of natural gas and hydroelectric power. It certainly includes proposals for major pipelines in our area. It includes the plight of the northwest fisheries industry, and even weekend traffic jams at the Peace Arch.

Each item on our regional agenda deserves careful consideration. But in order not to prejudice that consideration, we should avoid rushing in with an agenda of our own of strong unilateral demands — and I will do so. Before we can get on with the work of dealing with these specific problems and opportunities, I think we must first re-establish a healthy sense of mutual good faith, which will in itself assure the mutually successful resolution of our pending agenda.

I have accepted Premier Bennett's invitation to come to Victoria today, Mr. Speaker, and I am most appreciative of the opportunity to be able to speak to the Legislative Assembly. I am here in order to lay a new foundation and create a new framework for Washington state and the province of British Columbia to find mutual beneficial solutions to our common concerns. I am confident that we will find those solutions. The pioneer spirit still lives vibrantly in our peoples. We share what we call a "can do" mentality. There's no task that we cannot meet successfully.

We both have a job to carry on in our respective capitals of Ottawa and Washington, D.C., so that we may be free to capture the promise of this unfolding frontier we face together. I think we have to rally to the call of free trading in our respective back-east capitals. We must argue against protectionism and barriers. We must work together overseas to eliminate restrictions on agricultural products. We must together speak boldly for more trade, not less trade. For the frontier that we contemplate together is the unfolding bounty of the entire Asian-Pacific Rim, the quickly emerging focus of all world trade. Divine providence has granted us natural deep-water ports, which human endeavour has transformed into modern commercial facilities. We new kids out here in the west are about to come into our own.

A glance at the Canadian map reveals that British Columbia is in the extreme southwestern corner. A glance at our map indicates that while Alaska may be in the northwestern corner, British Columbia and Washington state can take great pride in sharing God's country which we call the Pacific Northwest. We do indeed have a great deal in common, and I wouldn't want my trip in any way to spoil that commonality of interest. We even have an independent sense of geography. We know that as the century before focused on the deep-water ports of the Atlantic and the opportunities of trade with Europe, history and geography at this time centre upon the proximity of our ports and facilities to the great markets of the east.

Most importantly, though, I think that we share a boundless future. Let us not go our separate ways into that future, but join hands across our common fence and walk into the future together as good neighbours and as close friends.

I thank you for the opportunity to address you. I look forward to welcoming you in the state of Washington.

MR. BARRETT: On behalf of the official opposition, may I say that the Governor has again proven the connection between the people of British Columbia and the people of Washington by the strength of his address and his informal approach, which is welcome here in the Pacific Northwest, both in Canada and the United States. The Governor also shares a common history with me; we are both graduates of Seattle University and have both been influenced by the very great faculty of that institution. The Governor was ahead of me in going through that institution and shows his experience by his excellent address today. We both suffered some experiences at Vets' Hall, I understand, but we'll put those behind us.

Governor, I'd like to say on behalf of all people of this province, regardless of politics, that there is a deep sense of understanding that this region is unique in the world. We appreciate that uniqueness and intend to protect it, regardless of any narrow political interest that we may have at any given time. Your words today indicate that there is a continuous pledge on behalf of the people of Washington state toward that goal of common protection and common solutions that we both need as a common people.

Let me conclude my thank you to the Governor by just repeating those wonderful words that someone thought to put on the Peace Arch, which are most appropriate for all of us here in the northwest. We are indeed "children of a common mother," and we are thankful for that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Governor Spellman, I have had the opportunity of working with you not only this morning but also in earlier phone conversations, when we developed the ability to talk to each other, as have the people of Washington state and the people of British Columbia in the past. I want to say that your speech today reinforced the feeling of comfort and friendliness between us. To me, to this assembly and to the people of British Columbia you have reinforced the good intentions and friendliness of the people of Washington state and the Pacific Northwest. You have also reinforced our commonality of interests as well as a willingness to go beyond the politics of nationalism — which happens from time to time, using each other as whipping boys — to reach out and say that our mutual interest is more important than self-interest, and that from time to time we are going to be called upon to act as more than politicians: as international friends and statesmen. Governor, you have exhibited that today, for which I thank you, and I'm sure this Legislative Assembly thanks you. The people of British Columbia look

[ Page 5467 ]

forward to a long and warm relationship between you, your people and our people.

The House took recess at 2:33 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:37 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd just like to take this opportunity to welcome students from the Nkwala School in the city of Penticton. There are students in the precincts of this chamber, and I believe some in the gallery at the present time, from grades 6 and 7, with their teacher Mr. Killins. They've had the opportunity to visit Victoria as a result of a trip they scheduled and funds they raised themselves to pay their way here. They've seen the Provincial Museum and are now touring the buildings. I'd like this House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Another group of school students are here from Nanaimo School District, from Rock City School. They are elementary students, and therefore not in the gallery, but they are in the precincts, so I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In the galleries are eight staff members from the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs meeting in Victoria in the course of a two-day seminar; some from Victoria, and some from around the province. Would members please welcome Francis Baskerville, Mary Gahrans, Eunice Ryder, Barbara McLeod, Anita Horgan, Judy Tsakijima, Lynn Poapst, and John Thompson?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to welcome two visitors from Mission visiting the gallery for the second day in a row: Mr. and Mrs. Jack Campbell.

HON. MR. SMITH: In your gallery today is a visitor from Edinburgh, a former school teacher there, who has visited this province a number of times. Mr. Callum Forrester is accompanied by my mother, Eleanor Smith, who is a more frequent visitor to this place. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome 36 students from the Edwin S. Richards School of Mission. Mr. Tough is their teacher. It's to be noted that they are accompanied by nine parents, a very excellent group.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased if the House would give a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Jack Bennett, from Toronto, Ontario.

MR. HOWARD: Before the Clerk at the table calls question period, I would like to raise a point of order with Your Honour.

My point of order is founded upon the following facts: (1) the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) is the Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice; (2) pursuant to the rules of the House it is possible for members to ask the Chairman of a select standing committee questions during question period with respect to matters falling to the Chairman of the particular committee about which one seeks to ask questions; (3) the member for Delta is now occupying the Chair as Deputy Speaker, and it places the assembly in the unfortunate position, I submit, of being unable to ask the member for Delta questions relating to his chairmanship of the committee on labour and justice.

I ask Your Honour to consider that and to consider what steps can be taken to prevent the House from being placed in this awkward position of being unable to ask questions of the member for Delta in his capacity as Chairman when he is in fact in the chair. Some ruling should be made, either that the member for Delta vacate his position as Chairman of the labour and justice committee, or that he not occupy the chair during question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena raises a point that does require some consideration, and without prejudicing the questions, I will take the matter under advisement and see if some acceptable solution cannot be arrived at for the benefit of the House.

Oral Questions

FARM EQUIPMENT TAX

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Some time ago his ministry moved unilaterally to deprive farmers of their legitimate tax exemption for a piece of farm equipment known as the Bobcat. That exemption was retroactive to 1975. Did the minister approve the decision to seek the retroactive tax bills amounting to hundreds of dollars from unsuspecting farmers who purchased this equipment in good faith?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, any question of taxation obviously is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance of the day. With respect to the specific issue which the hon. member has raised, I think it must be viewed in the context of a very wide range of exemptions which are granted to those in the agricultural community and those who purchase a variety of goods and pieces of equipment. There is a constant review underway now in the Ministry of Finance with respect to the desirability of additional exemptions. I have indicated to a number of people who have expressed concern with respect to this specific piece of equipment — the commercial name of which is Bobcat; that is one particular type — and we are examining those. On the question of skidders and others, we're examining those in terms of the budget for the 1982-83 year. I trust this review has occurred in previous years. I can assure the member that while there are specific cases which it is felt by certain individuals should be considered for exemption, we gather those and review them towards the end of each calendar year in preparation for the coming budget year.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister obviously has approved his retroactive collection of tax. Is that still going forward, Mr. Minister? That's my question. Is that tax being collected retroactive to 1975 at this point in time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that to be the case. I give that as the best possible information available to me at this moment.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister mentioned that the list has been constantly reviewed. I think he should check with

[ Page 5468 ]

his predecessors; he may find that's not quite factual. Has this minister decided to review the sales tax regulations on farm equipment in light of today's farm technology, which has changed considerably since the current regulations were drafted?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat heard the answer I gave in response to her first question. We have a changing technology. I recognize that there are those in the agriculture community — and indeed there are members in this House — who feel that perhaps the list of exempt items is somewhat out of date. I have made it clear, not only in this House but elsewhere, that we are reviewing that list, as indeed I think any government should. Certainly from time to time it is going to be apparent that some items which have been exempted are no longer employed in a particular activity — i.e., agriculture, manufacturing or whatever — while others which have come into use should be given the most careful consideration for exemption.

I don't know about all my predecessors in the Ministry of Finance portfolio in this province. I do know that in the Ministry of Finance — as we did last year and are doing now — whenever we receive a suggestion with respect to a further exemption, we don't just acknowledge that with a two- or three-line letter; we put that into a file for most detailed and careful review at the appropriate time towards the end of the calendar year when budget considerations are coming before us.

MARKET SURVEY ON ENERGY FILM

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. For the record, will the minister confirm that his ministry contracted with Goldfarb to conduct a viewer survey to determine audience reaction to the half-hour television program that featured the minister and other people and was played last Sunday?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. LEA: Was the survey by Goldfarb paid for by government funds? If so, how much?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I haven't got the invoices for the survey yet. I'm sure those will be made available to the members of the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.

MR. LEA: What were the questions that Goldfarb asked viewers, generally? What kind of questions were they?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the list of questions here with me. Generally, the program was designed to ensure that there was a good awareness of the problems and challenges facing us in terms of energy security in British Columbia in the future, and an understanding of the choices that will be necessary for us as citizens to make if we are to achieve energy security and some of the alternative paths which will have to be chosen if we are to do the same thing. A film such as that is of little use if it misses its mark in making those points to the audience which it serves. So the questions were designed to find out whether or not that understanding was gained by the public and whether or not there was, as a result of that understanding being gained, some opportunity for different attitudes in terms of what we do with our own energy resources in the future and how we respond as individuals to those needs.

MR. LEA: I'm sure the minister understands that there is a delicate balance when spending taxpayers' money on such a survey — that it's done strictly for information. There's always at least the suspicion that it may be done for partisan, political reasons — to get information back.

I wonder if the minister has decided, in order that there should be no misunderstanding with the taxpayers of the province, to make the questions that were asked by Goldfarb and the results available to those who have paid for them the taxpayers — so we can examine them at our leisure.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd certainly like to have the member and any others in the House take the opportunity to view the film, first of all, to assure themselves that it is not a partisan film and that it does serve the purpose for which it was intended. When I have the opportunity to have the results of the questionnaire myself.... I see no reason at this point why they shouldn't be shared with the rest of this Legislature, so that they can understand as well how the public reacted to the film.

MR. LEA: As I understand it, the minister did contract with Goldfarb to do this survey, not knowing how much it would cost.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, no. I didn't say that.

MR. LEA: Oh, you didn't. Well then, how much will it cost?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say that we didn't know how much it would cost. What I did say was that the invoices for the survey are not in yet. Normal practice followed in this House is for members to scrutinize the public accounts of this Legislature.

MR. LEA: If I understand the minister correctly, it's his fond hope that by the time we scrutinize them, the next election will be over.

What I'm asking the minister here is, regardless of public accounts: if you know how much it costs — and you say you do — then what's your hesitancy in letting us and the people who are going to pay the bill know how much it is going to cost the taxpayers of the province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't have the actual invoices for the program yet, but the costs will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of between $6,000 and $7,000.

MR. LEA: How many people were polled?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As soon as I have the details of the results of the poll, I will be happy to share all of the details with the members of this Legislature, as I've promised. I'll share them all with the members. They'll have a full opportunity to understand more fully what the poll was about, what the questions were and what the answers were.

[ Page 5469 ]

MR. LEA: The other day, during the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) estimates, I asked the Provincial Secretary whether he was aware of any survey taking place. He said that he wasn't. I'll take his word for it, of course. During the course of that debate, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources rose in his place to inform us — when we were trying to find out whether indeed a survey was going on — that the film was not made under the Provincial Secretary but under his department. Why didn't the minister admit at that time that the survey was in his department?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Why didn't that member ask me the question?

MR. LEA: That wasn't the question. The other day, why didn't the minister admit in the House, when the question was up before us as a committee...? You see, what it took was that we asked the Premier if he would go to each minister and find out who did it — they knew they'd had it. The Premier said he'd come back and tell us. Then he went out in the hall.... Is it going to be this minister's practice that information asked for in this House, which deserves to be answered, is only going to be provided when he's caught and in a bind — by him then going out and telling the press, as opposed to telling the House?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can't apologize for the deficiencies of the opposition in attempting to use question period in a way in which the questions get answered correctly. Answers are given correctly. It's not my fault that they don't know the processes of question period.

The film was sponsored by the Ministry of Energy. It was developed by the Ministry of Energy. It was in place and being produced for more than a year. The time on the television was paid for by the Ministry of Energy. Had I wanted to know an answer about that film, I think I would have asked the Minister of Energy.

MR. LEA: Of course, the question wasn't about the film. It was about the survey. That's what the minister purposely avoided telling the House. Would the minister tell us in the House — I'd like him to think carefully about this, because we've all, in the gallery and the press, watched the byplay over a couple of days — if it was his intention to tell us about the survey, even if we hadn't asked?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would expect that in the fullness of time, certainly. It was done with public funds. It was publicly done and was out there in the community. It was hardly a secret kept from anybody. There wouldn't be any sense in taking a survey of this nature — especially when we're trying to ascertain such important questions — if we wouldn't have taken some further public response, following the answers to those questions. There's been nothing hidden. It's been done through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, fully open to public scrutiny, as the funding is, through this Legislature. There couldn't be anything more open than that.

MR. LEA: Now that we're in a very open mood, and the minister admits that it's his duty to tell us everything, how much did the film itself cost?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The budget for the film will be approximately $100,000.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: in answer to a question posed this afternoon, I believe the minister stated that the Goldfarb polling thing was public knowledge. The public would know about it because they were being polled. I have a question for the minister. When the poll took place, were the members of the public who were contacted informed that this poll was being done for the government of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not sure. I can certainly find out for the member. As I've said, the poll was commissioned by the ministry, through ministry staff. The questions were developed by Goldfarb. I'm not sure of the answer to that question. but I'd certainly be happy to find out for the member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 49: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,438,605.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the minister.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: May I comment on the items raised by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)? For the record, may I first completely deny the accuracy and the validity of his suggestion that there will be political partiality in the granting of neighbourhood pub licence applications, or with respect to the appeal process, or that there has been in the past. What we're discussing, I think, is the technique for appeal, or the lack of any avenue for appeal, arising from neighbourhood pub licence rejections. If I heard my friend correctly, he makes the point that he thinks the processing of neighbourhood pub licences — the yes and the no — should end finally and completely with a person whom you can call a bureaucrat. The member takes exception — as I hear him — to the present legislation, which provides that in the event of an appeal the minister or his deputy may hear such an appeal. If I hear the member correctly, he argues, in part, that that may in theory provide an opportunity for political partiality, if the minister is going to be involved in a hearing. As I hear him, he goes on to assert that there has been or that there will be political partiality — both of which suggestions I want to completely and totally deny.

He can't have it both ways. He suggests that the reason I have delegated these appeals to the deputy minister as a policy is that for some reason, being a politician, I'm too good to get involved in those kinds of things. I've purposely delegated those appeals for the very reason the member suggests. To avoid any suggestion of political interference, I think it far better that appeal process be heard by the deputy minister.

[ Page 5470 ]

Where we part company, I think, is as to whether there should be an appeal in the first place. The tenor of my friends remarks seem to be that for the citizens of this province, regardless of their political stripe — if any, which should not be a material factor and indeed should not be disclosed — they get their one shot for a licence, and even if there happens to be a human error in the process there should be no appeal. We happen to believe as a philosophy that there should be an appeal provision for important bureaucratic provisions, and we think the provision we provide is fair and flexible and that the appeal may be to an elected person or his deputy. As I've tried to say, my policy will be to delegate the hearing of those appeals to my deputy. I'd be interested to hear more from the member as to his formula for the appeal process, and I'd certainly like him to clearly understand my categorical rejection of his suggestion that there has been or will be political partiality in the granting of licences or the appeal processes.

As to Mr. Karl Frangi, as I understand it that application was approved five years ago — in 1976. As I heard the member he took 1980 guidelines and compared them to a 1976 application approval. The Frangi matter is one of five years age, and the member revisits that five-year-old application approval in the context of pub guidelines issued in December 1980. With respect, that's a bit of a non sequitur.

MR. MACDONALD: November 7, 1978, wasn't it?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: My information is 1976, but in any event the guidelines the member is talking about are clearly from December 1980.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there is a similar previous guideline too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. In any case, the matters we are presently discussing are matters for which the present minister is responsible.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: With respect to the Sundowner matter, again, Mr. Chairman, I gather the date of that approval was October 1979 — some two and a half years ago.

MR. MACDONALD: October 1980.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, my notes indicate October 1979 for the approval.

MR. MACDONALD: October 27, 1980.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'll recheck my material, Mr. Chairman. I'm quite confident of the fact that October 1979 was the approval date. I will double-check that.

In any event, relative to the comments there may I simply say that to my knowledge and information there's no evidence of political partiality in the granting of pub licences. It will be the case in this province that persons bringing forward pub applications will most likely fall in one of three categories politically. They will be politically independent and uninvolved or they may happen to belong to the government party or the opposition party. I don't think they should be favoured or penalized if they choose to carry a party card. I think it's most unfair that a person would be automatically penalized or censured by virtue of supporting or having voted for a political party. If the suggestion is that if you want to be in the neighbourhood pub business you should never carry a political party card of any kind nor ever vote, I think that's going a little too far. I would like to think that citizens in the province are free to pursue privately, to pursue the political parties of their choice, to vote as they see fit and to freely carry a party card, if they like, as part of their personal political involvement or non-involvement. Separate from that, if they want to pursue business in this province and seek a licence from government, they should be able to do so as long as they seek no favour; they should also receive no penalty for having chosen to be involved with a political party of any kind.

As the member said, most certainly in theory there can be a possibility that liquor and politics are mixing in the wrong way, and that's something we all have to guard against. I can certainly tell the member that I'm concerned to see that the kind of worries he conjectures about don't come to pass.

I think that covers the items the member raised.

MR. MACDONALD: I wasn't suggesting that there be no appeal. There was an appeal to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, and it was that appeal that was eliminated in favour of an appeal to the minister, with the provision that the deputy could also take the hearing. I appreciate that we are dealing with a new minister. I think he's made a damning admission when he says: "As a minister I will not take the appeal, because it would be considered to be political." It sure would. Congratulations. But that's the legislation of your government. That's the way it's been done in the past, and I, quite frankly, don't see the distinction when you have this kind of an appeal between an appeal to a minister and an appeal to his deputy. I don't think the deputy, who is usually — and a good deputy should be — more catholic than the Pope, more loyal and, on some occasions, more ready to carry out the wishes of the minister than the minister himself, should be put into that kind of a position.

In the Sundowner case I made the point that the guidelines of the board — and I've got two bulletins, not just 1980; the earlier one says the same thing — were, for no reasons which were given, violated in granting the application. There are no rules in this game whatsoever at the present time. Sometimes you say the rules are that it shouldn't be in a shopping centre — you grant it in a shopping centre; sometimes you say it shouldn't be within a mile of another licensed outlet — you grant it within that, without a word of explanation.

Here is a new minister who is defending his portfolio. That's fine, but because I understand that he has had some legal training, I ask him whether it isn't rather a bizarre scene in terms of law to have an appeal where the Chairman, the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), is sitting there — not only in the Pridie one and for the Olma brothers — the deputy at the time is sitting there on this appeal, and nobody knows that it's going to happen. The public doesn't know. It's not in the B.C. Gazette; they don't know that this appeal is coming up or that there will be an appeal. It's all hugger-mugger; if you get favouritism for friends out of that kind of legislation which has been written, who could possibly be surprised?

There are no reasons given. I defy you to point to one case where the deputy or the minister hearing an appeal — what kind of an appeal is that really? — gave any reasons as to why: "It was in a shopping centre and the bulletin says 'can be, but shouldn't be' — it doesn't deny it altogether." But why was it exempted from that policy? Why was it exempted

[ Page 5471 ]

from being too close to a highway or too close to another licence? Why was one granted with good parking facilities and another one — the one to Frangi — with no parking facilities at all for the public that amount to anything? I think you have to go away across the road. You're in a wilderness here which would absolutely bewilder anybody who said: "What's the policy of the government about this? And if I appeal, what are the guidelines?" It's like going into the old court of Star Chamber — was it? — and it's the length of the chancellor's foot, or what somebody had for breakfast. There is just nothing.

When I point out to the minister what happened in the marine pub case at Gibsons and, as I pointed out — and it's been well documented in Hansard — what happened in the Pridie case out in North Delta, where the Olma brothers got it after Pridie was denied, any reasonable person would have a great deal of difficulty saying that wasn't hugger-mugger justice with favouritism to friends. That appeal procedure is totally ridiculous. I don't want the minister going around saying that I'm against an appeal; we wrote the original legislation and it went to a body that holds an appeal in a judicial way — the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. People have notice of their hearings and they give reasons for their decisions. You see them in that.

Go back to that legislation and wipe out what's been happening in this province. We're not supposed to discuss legislation, but that was an appeal, as anybody would understand the term. This business of going to the deputy or the minister privately is anything but satisfactory, and the abuses that I have alleged to have taken place in this province are things that this new minister ought to redress quickly.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, through you I would like to discuss a fairly controversial issue with the minister, and that's the suggestion by me — hopefully the minister will look into this — of allowing children to accompany their parents into a licensed tavern. We find in many states in the United States and in countries in Europe, and particularly in my constituency which borders on the state of Alaska that some taverns allow parents to bring their children in with them for a drink in a family atmosphere where food is served.

There is a certain section set aside in a lounge where parents can bring their child in, or their family, and sit and have a drink in a licensed tavern. I know there will be certain individuals who will say that a suggestion like this is wrong because it's going to influence children into drunkenness. But I think if we were realistic about it we'd find that children of today have found, through the media — television and newspapers — that there's already enough advertisement about alcohol that their going into a licensed establishment with their parents certainly won't turn them into alcoholics. I would like to see some neighbourhood pubs open up where children can go in. I know that I and, I think, many members of this House, when travelling throughout this great province with our families, are at times stuck in hotels, and we have a couple of options. We can either stay in the room, if we packed some alcohol with us, or we can have room service send up a bottle for fifteen thousand dollars. It would be so much easier if children were allowed with us into a tavern or licensed establishment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Certain individuals will say that this is wrong, and that you shouldn't take children in. At this time, almost one out of every two accidents on the highways is associated with some type of drinking, where an individual will go in at 4 p.m., leave at midnight and get into a car accident. We've also found that there's a lot of drinking going on in this province. Some Statistics Canada figures state that British Columbia has one of the highest rates of alcoholism per capita in the country. It might be a worthwhile suggestion to try to stop this growth of alcoholism and get back to some reasonable drinking. If children could accompany their parents, maybe something would work out. A case in point is in some northern areas where parents go into a tavern and the children are left in the car — I think some members of this assembly know about this. In the middle of winter, parents leave their children in the car for three or four hours while they go into a tavern, a licensed establishment or a neighbourhood pub. It would be so much easier if we could allow children into a special section of the tavern, to alleviate this problem.

My suggestion to the minister is that we wouldn't have to do this with carte blanche regulation. Maybe we could do it for three months or six months, and do some kind of consumer test on what effect it has in that locality concerning accidents and drunkenness — and the police reports associated with it. Try it on a short term of three or six months to see exactly what effect it has on the community. If allowing children into the taverns is shown to be a positive step, in that there is some responsible drinking done, maybe that is a suggestion we could use to look further into the drinking problem we have.

This is, of course, a controversial issue. I know I will certainly be getting letters from individuals who will say that by allowing children to go into a licensed establishment you are encouraging them to become involved in drinking. But I think, if we look at the overall issue of drinking and what it does to family life — accidents on highways, health issues, the employment aspects.... We have found out so often that one of the most serious problems is alcoholism and its effect on the job. We find more and more statistics concerning marriages and the effect drinking has on marriages. By encouraging parents to go into establishments with their children, maybe some of these serious problems could be broken down. They don't seem to be getting any better.

I would certainly hope that the minister could look into something that would allow families to go into a pub — maybe setting certain hours, for instance. I don't think any children should be up sitting in a lounge with their parents at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock at night. I notice when I go to Hyder, Alaska, there is usually an atmosphere that children should be out by 9 o'clock. It's done by the management in that particular bar. Children are able to be with their parents until 9 p.m. Maybe some type of restrictive hours.... I would just like the minister's feeling concerning these ideas that I've raised.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Could I clarify one thing? I take it that the suggestion from the member for Atlin is that children be allowed to accompany parents, not into a restaurant or meal-service setting where liquor is served in conjunction, but rather into a bar or tavern where liquor is all that's being served. I would have to say to the member that I personally would have a very strong sense against the wisdom of that change at this time. I appreciate that the member comes from a particularly unique area in the

[ Page 5472 ]

province, and in that unique setting there could be arguments not applicable to most of the province. But to give the member a frank answer, I have a very strong feeling against the suggestion that minors or children be allowed into a pure drinking place with parents. Alternatively, for example, if it's a family restaurant with meal service, where the family wants to go for evening dinner, and the parents want a glass of wine with the meal, I think that's a different thing. The short answer is that I think I'd be one of those, to whom the member referred, having a pretty strong reaction against it.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his remarks on this vote, I was pleased to hear the minister indicate that government, on its bookkeeping anyhow, was a net loser monetarily; and that social costs, which are borne by other departments — and other departments see the misery resulting from alcohol abuse — far outweigh the income side of the ledger in terms of liquor sales. This is something similar to what the former Minister of Health said a couple of years ago: that the social cost to government will be found in the Ministry of Human Resources and in the Ministry of Health, through increased hospital costs and so on. I think that's probably quite correct.

The minister then went on — and admittedly he was dealing with a question that had been put to him relating to the price of liquor — to follow the reference to the social costs of it with a comparison of the prices of liquor in various provinces and other jurisdictions, and of price increases in other items and other commodities. I came out at the end with the conclusion that the price of liquor vis-à-vis what it was a few years ago is not measurably out of line with the price increases experienced by other commodities.

Regretfully, though, I think the minister had a good opportunity then to embark upon a sociological and humanitarian discussion of the social costs. I wish he had done that. I wish we had been able to get the reference point there. I am one of those who has a concern about the social costs, as have others in this chamber — it's not an exclusive attitude or feeling. I think the government, in a total sense, probably doesn't have that orientation. Look at the budget speech, for example. The budget speech opening the session in March talked about tax increases on energy as being necessary in order to conserve. Increase the price of something by a tax increase, thereby bringing about a reduction in the consumption of that particular commodity because it costs more. That was all right as an attitude which applied to oil and energy prices. But the budget also made reference to the necessity or the desirability of increasing the price of liquor, taxing that or raising its price to the consumer. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was going to talk about this with his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Subsequently that came to pass. But nowhere in the budget speech was there any reference, intimation or hint that by increasing the price of liquor, we might thereby cut down the consumption of it by making it more costly. I submit that putting those two positions in juxtaposition, one to the other, indicates that there isn't a true appreciation in the government as a whole of the social costs of alcohol abuse.

Mr. Chairman, alcohol use is up. Consumption of alcohol is up. I've heard figures — and I'm not going to bother going through them to identify the figures in any statistical way, using 2 percent or whatever it is. It's a fact, I'm told, that consumption of alcohol on a per capita basis has been increasing in the last few years. Consumption of alcohol by younger people has been increasing in the last few years. Consumption of alcohol in British Columbia is at a higher level per capita than any other province of Canada, so some statistics tell me. Alcohol abuse has increased. Automobile accidents have increased as a result of alcohol and the use and abuse of alcohol. Deaths as a result of alcohol-connected accidents in automobiles have increased. Deaths as a result of cirrhosis of the liver have increased. Family break-ups and mental health problems have increased. Hospitalization of people has increased as a result of alcohol and alcohol abuse. In fact, in acute-care hospitals there are — so hospital authorities and medical practitioners say, and, I'm sure, so the minister and the Ministry of Health will certainly say — many cases that come into the hospital — sprains, abrasions, failing down the stairs, broken limbs — that are not identified to the hospital as being caused by alcohol abuse, but they are, in fact, caused by alcohol abuse. All the hospital records show is that a person came in with skinned knees and a broken shoulder from having fallen down someplace. But actually and factually, the alcohol-abuse connection with that is masked by not having it so identified. Child neglect and injuries within families.... A tremendous unidentifiable social cost is there because of the use and abuse of alcohol.

One of the contributing factors to increased use of alcohol is advertising. It's common knowledge in every walk of commercial life that if you want to increase the sales of something — so says Pepsi-Cola, Bayer aspirin, Arrid roll-on underarm deodorant and whoever wants to sell anything — you increase the advertising, sophisticate the advertising techniques, and your sales increase. This is true in the liquor industry as well. The greater amount of advertising of booze that takes place — dressed-up, euphemized in its description of what it is — the greater the increase in the sales and consumption, and it lends itself to increasing the abuse of that.

I got a magazine out of the library that I'd like to flip through. I just picked it up off the library shelf. It's a family magazine in Canada called Maclean's, which is well known, well read and family oriented. The first page I open up — I won't identify the booze, because that would probably be advertising it — right inside the front cover is liquor. There are some nice pictures on it, and it talks about rarity. It says: "Rare taste — the classic characteristic that has made this particular brand so much sought after." Turning to a couple of other pages, here we have a variety of alcohols: whisky, rum and vodka. It's a full page and glossy — in a family magazine. Listen to some of the descriptions: "A light, white, mellow tasting rum." It's a beautiful sound. You can just feel it slipping past your lips. What they're trying to tell you is that it's a beautiful flavour. Here's another one: "A very pure vodka — triple-filtered." They don't tell you whether it's filtered through asbestos or not, which causes some difficulties, but it's triple-filtered. "For a unique, crystal, sparkling taste" — it just attracts you and makes you want to rush into the store and buy some.

It doesn't tell you anything about the misery that accrues from this. It doesn't tell you anything about cirrhosis of the liver, about family breakups that take place or about the misery visited upon kids in the family when this is abused, because people are attracted partly by the advertisement. "Light in body, specially smooth in flavour" — it's all the way through. I've totalled these all up to show you here. Here's another one: "Bonded Stock is a rye-drinker's rye" — masculine. It's got three young, handsome, virile and well-

[ Page 5473 ]

tanned looking individuals smiling at you out of the picture. You think, man, all I've got to do is to drink some of that rye and I'm going to look like that. That's not the case. You can end up with a bulbous nose, bleary eyes, bad teeth, bad breath and cirrhosis of the liver all at the same time.

Here's another one that's a full page: "Discover Certain Wines." Here's another one: "Silent Sam" — that's the name of the booze — "sneaks up on you." Here's a fellow that makes sure that a certain brand of whiskey is "mellowed for ten full years to create the smoothest tasting whiskey you can ever find." It goes on and on. "Here's something so light, all it needs is ice." On the first about 20 pages of this family magazine — then it starts to get into the news part, after they get through the advertising in the front part and get to items of some general interest — there are some 17 advertisements. Seven full pages of those advertisements are for booze. There's a half-page one about booze as well. Almost half of the total advertising in the first part of a family magazine is advertising liquor. If you turn to the back page you find the same thing. You can't escape it.

The liquor industry pours literally millions and millions of dollars into advertising. It comes back to them in the form of increased sales. Never mind the increased price that the liquor distribution branch charges or the sales tax on top of it; it just goes straight to the distillers, wineries and breweries. They get their money back many times over. You just need to look at the balance sheets of groups like Seagram's and the like to find that out.

I submit that if we're going to permit — and we are — the liquor, beer and wine industries to engage in a full-scale multimillion dollar advertising program — misleading advertising, because they only tell part of the story — to get the general public to buy and drink more of their product, we need to recognize who the beneficiary is: the liquor industry. Who do the costs fall upon on the other side of the ledger? They fall upon the individual who cannot control it, the family who cannot control it and who abuse it and poor unsuspecting kids who are caught in that squeeze and injured thereby. The dollar value cost is borne by the taxpayers through taxes they pay to cover hospital care and the cost of care through Human Resources and the like.

I put this case forward before and I put it forward again. I say to the minister that for every dollar the liquor industry spends in advertising its product and wares, they should be required to put up a dollar into a counter-advertising program that the government runs. The government uses it dollar for dollar. If the liquor industry wants to advertise to sell its wares in order that it be the financial beneficiary, it should put up another buck into a fund that the government uses to advertise about the awkwardnesses that come as a result of alcohol abuse. We should try to have a counter-balance advertising program there. After all, I think it's probably not very helpful solely to permit the advertiser to be the only beneficiary of a massive advertising program with those horrendous social costs following therefrom. The general public should be a beneficiary in this aspect as well.

The minister, I understand — I don't know how widespread this was — submitted a questionnaire to people with respect to the proposal to permit the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: No. The supermarkets did it themselves.

MR. HOWARD: The supermarkets submitted a questionnaire. Okay.

The questionnaire was, as I understand it, as follows: "Are you in favour of the sale of beer, wine, etc., in grocery stores? Yes. No. No opinion." That, I think, was a very poor way for that group who have a vested interest and who basically say: "Yes, we want to be able to sell beer and wine." Why? Not because the grocery chains have any concern about social costs. The individual managers of the store and the people working in it may have that concern, but the chain — the institution itself — does not have.

As the minister knows, a corporation has all the attributes of a human being except a heart and a soul. A corporation doesn't have that concern; individuals do. I submit it was improper for a group with a vested interest to have submitted that kind of questionnaire to groups of people when they have a vested interest in it.

A simple yes, no, no opinion is far too shallow a type of questionnaire to submit to people on a very complex problem. It had no indication that there were any social costs, no indication that it was good or bad, no indication as to whether the grocery chain was going to profit thereby and no indication that additional people were going to end up on skid row, die of cirrhosis of the liver, end up in an automobile accident, beat their kids, or whatever happens when people abuse alcohol. No rationale was proposed of a balanced type of opinion that says: "Here are both sides of the question. Now what do you think?"

Alcohol is a poison. It has poisoned people, and it will poison them again. It all comes down to the individual being responsible for one's own acts. We all recognize that. Very regretfully, there are people in our society who have not had the benefit of family guidance and parental counselling in the wise use of these poisons that are available to us in every walk of life. Regretfully, there are people who grew up who may not have the intellectual perception of the difficulties they will be faced with. They may not be able to have the capacity to be responsible for their own activities. When that happens the costs of their intemperate use of this poison called alcohol are visited not solely on the one individual, but upon his family, friends, neighbours and the whole of society. The whole society of that individual ends up being hospitalized, dying or whatever the case may be.

I submit to you that if we widen the opportunity — and the more that opportunity is widened to make alcohol available the more widely will become its use — the greater will be the consumption and the greater will be the social misery and costs that arrive therefrom. We have enough of that already. In my view a simple kind of reference point that says how much does it cost for a quart of whisky, why does it cost $9.20 when you can make it for $1.35, etc.... I think, regretfully, that we're looking at it from the wrong point of view. If we look at it in terms of the social cost and the necessity of education, counselling and guidance, either through our educational system or through inculcating the attitude in parents that they have a responsibility to themselves and their children in trying to advise about a rational and sensible use of alcohol and not an abuse of it, we'll be far better off in our society.

I know that basically the minister is in no disagreement with what I'm saying, and I hope we'll be able to see some positive steps come out of his ministry in the direction that I'm advocating at the moment.

[ Page 5474 ]

MR. BARNES: I certainly would like to congratulate the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on a very eloquent and to the-point presentation with respect to the evils of alcohol, and would commend everyone who is concerned about some of our social problems that are the result of this major industry to read his remarks and distribute them, because I think they're very appropriate for the problems we're currently dealing with.

I'll only take a minute or two. First of all I wanted to refer to a study that was prepared by the Downtown Community Health Clinic for the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. Perhaps the minister is aware of this; it was done in 1980. There is a table that I would like to refer to with respect to bylaw violations in the city of Vancouver. There are 23 hotels. Downtown eastside hotels in Vancouver are a perfect illustration of some of the extreme results of exploitation in the use of alcohol by all kinds of people. There are listed here 23 hotels. I'd just like to read them briefly for the members. Some of these are licensed premises and some are just boarding-rooms housing people who are on fixed incomes. The main point of this is that some are hotels and some are rooming-houses. But there have been several violations, like general repairs, maintenance and cleaning, fire bylaws, and I just wanted to give you an idea of how bad it is.

The last figure I'll give will be the documented examples of violations in the year 1980 alone, and these are totals of the categories I just mentioned: Drexel Rooms — 233; Main Rooms — 207; Ohio Rooms — 236; Warren Hotel — 580; Vanport Hotel — 971; 832 East Pender — 154; George Rooms — 584; West Hotel — 961; Palace Hotel — 261; Cobalt Hotel — 1,037; the Victoria Block — 611; Cordova Rooms — 262; Afton Hotel — 366; 1190 East Hastings — 261; Tremont Hotel — 381; The Veile Hotel — 211; Savoy Hotel — 305; Francis Fay — 489; Wings Hotel — 421; Wonder Rooms — 485; Lions Hotel — 265; Kings Rooms — 298; Hastings Rooms — 183.

That's a total of 9,743 violations for 23 establishments, a combination of hotels and rooming-houses. You can be assured that the owners of these facilities are not inclined to do very much about it, because the enforcement of the bylaws, both at the civic level and as far as the liquor administration of this province is concerned, seems to be very negligent — enforcing the bylaws which exist with respect to protecting those consumers who, tragically, have very few alternatives to the lifestyles they seem to be subjected to.

The question of the proliferation of liquor establishments has been raised in the study as being in excess of the need. As a statistic, I recall that 20 years ago there were one-third as many. I believe there were 80-odd liquor outlets on the government side, and there are now over 150 per 100,000, which indicates a 200 percent increase per 1,000 — liquor establishments that the government has increased. I guess the concept is to make alcohol more accessible. It's clear that the government's policy is to exploit the liquor industry as a main source of revenue. As the previous speaker indicated, that is hardly the field in which we should be attempting to balance the budget. In fact, it is an unfortunate tradition in our society, but we're not unique.

Drinking can be enjoyable socially, and most of us like to feel that we are under control — those of us who do drink — and that we don't personally have problems. I would submit that habituation can slip up on all of us at the best of times and with the best of intentions. Certainly, when many of these people are restricted in the outlets available to them, they find themselves going to beer parlors and drinking houses, because the rooms they live in are filthy, unkempt, untidy, and the maintenance is virtually nonexistent. They find it more comfortable to go to one of these drinking establishments than to stay in their little dingy rooms. The whole question of bootlegging, the weak enforcement of liquor laws and, as I said earlier, the proliferation of liquor establishments should be looked at with a view to a more rational and reasonable approach to providing this poisonous spirit, as my colleague from Skeena pointed out.

I would commend this study to the minister. If he does not have it, I would certainly be pleased to make it available to him. The downtown east side in Vancouver is probably one of the few communities that have attempted to analyze the effects of such problems as alcohol on the community. Perhaps none of the other communities have the same kind of intensity. I doubt if there is a need in the Shaughnessy or west Point Grey areas, specifically, to do these kinds of studies, although there may be just as many people using alcohol. Their economic situation may be such that they have other options to them. It hardly becomes a visible problem for the community in which it's happening.

The downtown east side is well known as being the last stop for many citizens who have been unable to find their way successfully in the extremely competitive communities in which they live. As a result, they are quite often neglected by officials. The attitude is one of general indifference. Most of the licensees operating establishments in the area take the view that there is no serious commitment on the part of various levels of government to do anything other than accept those communities as a reality of the times and the natural consequence of the kind of lifestyle that we seem to accept in our culture.

I would just like to go on record as saying that this question is definitely associated with the one that the minister has indicated he will be attempting to get information on with respect to the closing of the liquor store in the vicinity of Hastings and Main. I understand that on May 23 you'll be holding a public meeting. I would like you to review this study in advance. Notwithstanding the fact that the city of Vancouver has apparently already voted in favour of closing that particular liquor store for obvious reasons, I would hope that the minister will reflect this desire on the part of the city. Just as the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has pointed out the uniqueness of his community with respect to persons who are visiting community pubs with children, having a problem because of the remoteness of the area and the vast miles that they have to travel and so forth.... It's a unique problem. This is analogous to what we have to deal with in the downtown east side as well. That is a unique community. It's highly populated, but one where most people have not been successful in acquiring the job skills they need, or the access to resources, housing and social amenities. They are simply a forgotten community. Yet it is a definite community of very hard working people who are trying to manage their affairs. I think that they are being taken advantage of.

The use of alcohol and other drugs is a form of relief. Unfortunately it is too often the only option they seem to have. There are very few other options in terms of reestablishing themselves and getting back into the mainstream of society. In the face of many of these obstacles, it's awfully easy to become discouraged. I think that it's just a tragic commentary on the inequities of our society with respect to some of these people.

[ Page 5475 ]

Would you be good enough, Mr. Minister, to indicate what the government has planned for trying to raise a level of respectability in that community, recognizing that most of the liquor outlets in that area are operated by individuals who have totally disregarded the bylaws of the city and the laws that certainly could be enforced? The list I read off to you should certainly be grounds enough to lift licences, to prosecute and to begin to demonstrate that we may not outlaw drinking, but we do have rules with respect to how people will drink and under what conditions.

I think it is incumbent upon this minister, who has the opportunity to make his first initiatives positive and forceful. You have had no opportunity to make very many mistakes. Therefore you have set no bad precedents, though several of them have been set by some of your predecessors. I would encourage you to do some good for everyone in a non-partisan way, and at least insist that the laws already on the books be enforced. I'm not suggesting new laws. There certainly should be standards of maintenance consistent with the obvious needs, but they're all laws on the books. I just read to you that there were over 9,000 violations. I think that if we could even do that, we would show that we are committed to enforcing the law. I think everyone expects that they are quite capable of abiding by the law as long as the law officials insist that they do, but when you turn a blind eye, it sort of passively says: "Don't worry. It's on the books, but we're not that concerned anyway, because most of those people are not worthy."

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I was aware of the DERA study to which the member referred, but I have not previously actually had a copy. If he has a spare or could make me a copy, I would receive it and read it with great interest.

Relative to the question of the licensees in the area and infractions, I hope to soon meet with Deputy Chief Herdman of the Vancouver city police force, together with those of his people involved in the policing aspect of the area. I have already discussed that problem area with our own officials in liquor control and licensing. I want to do some more work there.

With respect to Main and Hastings, for the benefit of the member, can I just make clear the steps I'm taking. There would appear to be some confusion in the mind of Alderman Eriksen as to the steps we're taking, notwithstanding that we've tried to make our steps very clear. My first step was to personally acquaint myself with that Main and Hastings problem by, at his request, meeting with Alderman Eriksen and several groups representing his point of view in that area. I publicly received their briefs and heard their concerns and then did a walking tour of the area.

Since that time, others in the community have been in touch with me to indicate that they don't share his very strong view that the store should be closed. Before I make a decision I want to give everybody in that community a chance to publicly make their point of view to me in the same way as do those who advocate Alderman Eriksen's position. For example, I've heard from some small merchants up the street who are very concerned that the problem will simply slide up to them. I've not heard at all from the union involved, and I would like to hear from them. It's my observation that native groups should be asked for their view on the topic. Also, I think I'd like to hear from residential and ratepayer or community groups in the area of other liquor stores to which the problem might be transferred, and I'm not saying it would be.

Most importantly I want the member to understand — and Alderman Eriksen apparently doesn't appreciate this — that what we would like to try to do, speaking on behalf of the LDB, is not take sides in the community if there is divided opinion, but rather be part of reaching a consensus. To the May 23 conference, to which the member and his seatmate are most warmly invited and will receive invitations, my hope is to get both points of view in the one room at the right time. To the degree there are differences I'd like to try at that time to bring them together. I want the member to know that if within that community we can mollify the concerns of those who think that closing the store is a mistake and produce a community consensus, then I think the branch should be listening very attentively and very closely. I think there's a far greater chance we will act in that direction. It's a very open process. That's what we're trying to do.

Just for background, I thought you should have that. If you're free that morning, I hope you can be with us. Failing that, I will very much appreciate your advice privately if you can give it to me.

MR. SKELLY: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It also relates to some of the unhealthy side-effects of the liquor trade. At this point, I'm a little more concerned about the international trade in liquor and liquor commodities. One of the problems we have is that in many Third World countries, as the minister knows, a large portion of agricultural lands is turned over to cash crop commodities. Many of these commodities — sugar and other things — are based on the liquor trade. The very fact that this land is used for those commodities — sugar and liquor products — results in a loss of domestic food production in those countries and increased poverty and malnutrition for the citizens of those countries, many of whom work in the fields producing sugar and agricultural commodities used to produce liquor. In addition, the foreign exchange generated from selling liquor to countries and to provinces such as British Columbia is often used to buy arms in order to repress those same poverty-stricken and malnourished people who work in the sugar fields to produce liquor which Canadians and British Columbians purchase. Now I do have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I hope he is paying attention.

When the New Democratic Party government was in office we felt it was important for the government of this province to express their concern about the conditions of apartheid in South Africa and the way that white minority government treats its large black majority, to deal with this issue by refusing to shelve South African wines and liquors, and in fact to make it a necessity that British Columbians who support the system in South Africa would actually have to request the wines and spirits from that country, rather than this province demonstrating its support for the system of apartheid by displaying those liquors on the shelves.

My question to the minister is on the policy of the Social Credit government with respect to South African wines and spirits. Do you display South African wines on the shelves in liquor stores and thereby indicate that the province of British Columbia has no objection to the system of apartheid in South Africa and to the fact that the Republic of South Africa is illegally holding the country of Namibia contrary to United Nations resolutions? Or does the present government require people who support that kind of system and that kind of illegal action by the Republic of South Africa individually to

[ Page 5476 ]

request South African wines rather than having the government of British Columbia display those wines on its shelves?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, the policy of the government and of the liquor distribution branch with respect to product offerings in our stores is basically to provide to consumers a wide range of product choice, and certainly products on our LDB shelves are displayed on virtually a worldwide section basis. Now before I get to the question particularly of South African products, may I say that all of those products, to stay listed, must survive some reasonable test of consumer support. The listing committee meets twice a year; in its arsenal of material are the computer printouts as to products which are purchased and those which are not, products which are gaining in popularity and products that are falling in popularity. Certainly apart from any political considerations, if products from a particular country — South Africa or otherwise — are not receiving the level of consumer support that would allow them to stay on the shelves, they will be delisted.

In the particular case of South African products, I think there are probably 11 now offered in our stores which pass the basic criteria required of all international liquor products to be on our shelves. We offer those and we do not, as part of our practice and policy in liquor listings, make international political decisions of the type suggested by the member for Alberni. The reason for that is very simple. We think that the consumer has a free and open right so to do. In the first place, nobody is forcing or compelling consumers to go into our liquor stores and buy liquor at all.

But secondly, for those who choose to, no one is compelling them to purchase a South African product. They can exercise freely, if they wish, their consumer choice or non-choice, based upon their individual view of what's good or bad politically about a product. They are free so to do. But we think it's incorrect to practise a form of selective international political value judgments whereby we in certain cases list and delist on political grounds. Certainly it is not the case that the consumers in this province are given only the choice of certain types of products only coming from South Africa. Within ranges — be they wines, ports or what have you — if the consumer freely so chooses and wishes to choose a South African product, we believe that should be his choice. Equally it is open for that particular consumer, if he or she prefers, to alternately choose a similar type of product but from a different country.

We simply don't think we should be in the political selective international ethic or value-judgment situation. We can cite all kinds of examples not limited to liquor. The issue arose under the previous government of B.C. Hydro ordering generators made in Russia when Mr. Williams was Minister of Lands and Forests and responsible for that Crown authority. You can go back and forth and select all kinds of examples not limited to liquor. In any event, Mr. Chairman, that is our policy and those are the reasons for the policy.

MR. SKELLY: Be that as it may, the simple fact is that the United Nations, of which Canada is a member state, have voted sanctions against the Republic of South Africa for the way in which a small white minority in that country compels a large black majority to remain in certain parts of the territory; they deprive them of certain rights of citizenship and rights of national status. The minister talks about consumers in British Columbia being free to choose any type of wine, spirit or liquor they please, yet the nation whose products we're talking about imposes upon the vast majority of its people a regime in which they have no right to choose one way or the other. They impose on them passes, restrictions on their travel and conditions of living that we in this country and people in any democracy would find abhorrent. This has been recognized by the United Nations in the fact that the General Assembly has voted for trade sanctions against the Republic of South Africa. The minister is saying that the consumers of British Columbia, through the availability of those liquors on the shelves of the liquor stores, should have the right to choose one way or the other, rather than to accept the sanctions which have been imposed against the Republic of South Africa because of the inhumane way they treat the majority of their citizens.

Another fact that we have to consider is that liquors are often traded in the international market in order to generate foreign currencies, which governments such as the South African government use to purchase arms with which to repress that same black majority that has no choice — such as the consumers of this province have — to decide one way or the other whether they want a system of government, a way of life or even one type of wine or spirits over another. Is the minister saying that it is the policy of his government to allow that kind of thing to happen in spite of the sanctions imposed by the United Nations?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'm not saying that. It is clearly the case that if British Columbians, and in particular a significant number of them, wish to exercise the kind of non-choice that the member suggests, they may do so. I can assure him that if the consequence of the exercise of that choice is that those products fall below that basic level of support necessary to stay as listings on the shelves, they’ll disappear as listings.

MR. SKELLY: As far as the government of British Columbia is concerned, I gather the minister is saying that it doesn't really matter what's happening in South Africa one way or the other.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: That is an absolutely absurd extension of what I said. It's not what I said at all. If the member wants to produce a shopping list of items, ranging from Russian vodka to hydro-generators, from when his government was in power, we can go through the same kind of argument. That's not what I said at all.

MR. SKELLY: The minister has missed what I said. The United Nations General Assembly has voted that this nation, among other member nations, embark on trade sanctions against a country that does not respect the human and political rights of a vast majority of its citizens. I'm saying that British Columbia, as a province of a member state of the United Nations, should at least take the same position. In spite of what the minister has replied to my earlier question, I gather that this province does not take that position.

MR. BARBER: First of all, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. Bruce Hill, who I see in the gallery opposite. He's a cellist

[ Page 5477 ]

and pianist who plays in the orchestra which I have the privilege of conducting. He will be at rehearsal on Sunday and in attendance at a concert the evening of Friday, May 22, at 7:30 p.m. at the Saanich Silver Threads centre. Thank you for coming and letting me give the plug. It will be a benefit for the restoration fund at the Jewish synagogue in Victoria.

However, I'd like to discuss briefly, if I may, within the duties of the minister, the policy now being considered that might see the sale of wine and beer in grocery stores. I'd like to report to the minister that a week ago Friday I met with a delegation of some 15 independent merchants, all of them in the retail grocery trade in Victoria. They were in our office primarily to talk about theSunday shopping law and the problem with the crazy quilt of openings and closings in greater Victoria.

Towards the end of the meeting I asked them if they would tell me how many of them wished to see beer and wine being sold in their shops. To my utter amazement, every one of them said: "None." Every single one of these roughly 15 merchants in greater Victoria — many of whom I know to be honest and reasonable guys, because I've lived here all my life and have family connections with them, and friendly ones as well — said they did not want beer or wine to be sold in their stores, and would refuse it if they possibly could. They would refuse it and encourage their fellows to refuse it. Two of them especially made the case with considerable conviction that they have themselves seen the results of alcohol abuse so often in their own families, among their own friendships, their own employees and in Victoria at large that they did not wish to be held personally responsible for any more of that. I admit I was quite startled by that; because my presumption had always been that because it is profitable, presumably it would therefore be in the interests of these private entrepreneurs — who are honest people, earn an honest buck and run a good business — to do that sort of work.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Alex doesn't agree with you.

MR. BARBER: That's right, there is disagreement, and I've learned something in the last couple of weeks that I didn't know before. What I learned from these people — and I was very glad they came into the office....

HON. MR. HEWITT: What about the rest of the people?

MR. BARBER: I'm only reporting on the ones I met with; I can't comment on the rest. I'm just giving you the opinions expressed to me — with greater conviction and vigour than I expected — which said unanimously among this group of roughly 15 business persons in the capital city, that they want nothing at all to do with it, and they offered a number of perfectly persuasive and important reasons for that. I said I would raise the matter on their behalf in these estimates. I encouraged them to get in touch with the minister directly. They may have done so by now; if not, I hope they'll do so shortly.

It strikes me there are a couple of tests which this policy should meet. There are a couple of questions the government should answer before they and others of us who are now having second thoughts, including myself, might choose to endorse it. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he has available such information as would demonstrate what happened in another and comparable jurisdiction when they switched — when they went from state or Crown distribution to some shared distribution through private enterprise, be it grocery stores or some other means. In particular, what happened in regard to per capita consumption either by gallon of wine or ounce of spirits? Is there information available that could demonstrate to the committee that by opening up the system of distribution you are not thereby simply creating a larger and potentially more abusing group of alcohol and wine drinkers? The first test is, surely, to find out whether or not there is precedent elsewhere that might instruct us; if there is, it would be extremely useful to have that.

Secondly, again based on the study of precedent elsewhere, I wonder if the minister could answer a question that was put to me by these grocery store owners from Victoria. They put it very bluntly. They said: "Look, when the age was lowered to 19, for all practical purposes in most bars in B.C., that lowered it to 17." Everyone knows that 17 year-olds get into bars freely in British Columbia — those are guys. Girls — who often look much older than their real age — can get in at 15 and 16, and that too is well known. What happens if you lower the age in a grocery store where the clerk himself might only be 16, 17 or 18 years of age? His friends come in on a Friday night when the owner's away and say: "Come on, Jerry, sell us a six-pack; sell us this or that." What kind of restraint, what sort of example and what lessons can we learn from the precedent elsewhere that tells us that is not, in fact, a real problem?

It struck me that these grocery store owners were thinking through in the most practical way the possible administration of this policy when they said: "Look, I hire teenagers who work late hours and on the weekends in my shop. Their friends come in and they might want to buy cigarettes and bread, but what happens when they want to buy booze?" They're probably under-age too, although they might not look it. As friends they can certainly apply a sort of peer pressure, a pressure that no one else could apply, and that might result in the improper and unwelcome distribution of booze to kids who are far too young to handle it properly. They said: "Tell us, what do we do about that? Do we fire all our teenage clerks? Do we make sure they don't have any friends? Do we make sure they're not subject to any of that? How do we protect ourselves from that?" Then they went on to worry about how they protect themselves in the eyes of the law if, as a result of those pressures and for other reasons, they end up inadvertently breaking the law — not on purpose, but in consequence of a policy which might not, in fact, be thought out quite as clearly as it could be.

Thirdly, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not we can learn from experience elsewhere about the rate of abuse and the increase of it in the adult population. Everyone knows France has the highest rate of alcoholism in the world. I should tell the minister that for a period I served as the first manager of B.C.'s first Alcohol and Drug Commission. I served as a commissioner as well, and we had some considerable debate. We had an opportunity among ourselves to learn over a period of some years how it worked elsewhere. One of the arguments made to us by credible, responsible and basically learned people is that, in other jurisdictions, the simply and mindlessly wide-open system of wine, beer and spirits distribution has led to simply horrendous and, as it turns out, unstoppable abuse.

Those are the three questions — if you will, Mr. Minister, the three tests. First, if you go to wine and beer in the grocery

[ Page 5478 ]

stores, does it increase general usage in the population? Secondly, the particular problem of underage users of alcohol might, in fact, be worsened because of the practical circumstances involved when you go to the corner store and your friend, with whom you are in grade 11 at Victoria High School, is behind the counter and no one's around and you want to buy beer. Is he going to turn you down? Not likely. The third question is the relative incidence of abuse — all of the standard measures by which we assess alcoholism and the related problems of improper consumption. Those, to me, are the three fundamental questions of policy and the three fundamental conflicts that all of us have in dealing with this issue.

The same tests might well be applied to the current government liquor stores, by the way. And well they should be. I don't in any way wish to let them — or us, as their managers — off the hook. Nonetheless, if we propose a new policy for whatever reasons we may think good, civilized and to the prosperous advantage of the merchants themselves, those three questions have to be answered. I appreciate that the minister may not be able to answer them today, but hopefully, before a final decision is taken on the policy, such answers will be provided.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I found those comments very helpful. I must say to the first member for Victoria that I'm also finding, as I go into this part of the discussion in policy, that there are a lot of surprises — attitudes coming from people that you frankly wouldn't expect. That's part of getting into something and looking at it.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Perhaps I can answer best by putting the question of beer and wine in stores a little differently. As I now assess it, the three major questions that have to be assessed in coming to a recommendation are as follows. The impact on price to the consumer is one because, clearly, it seems to me, if a move is to be made in the direction of beer or wine in stores, distribution costs to the winery or brewery must therefore rise. Presumably there is going to be an impact on consumer pricing. Wearing a Consumer Affairs hat, that's a very major question for me, although not necessarily the first.

The second is, very obviously, the impact on consumption and abuse. We do have some comparative data. We are getting more. There is really a wealth of places to which one can look — Newfoundland, I think, most recently. There were some very good studies done in Manitoba under Premier Schreyer's government, which I've looked at in some detail. Ontario, Quebec, Washington, California — we're going to look at all of those. You've asked one of the very key questions, which is the impact on consumption and abuse. One of the puzzling things is that here in British Columbia, with a so-called government system in the area of wine consumption and in the absence of any so-called privatization, wine consumption per capita is, by a long mile, far higher than any other province in Canada. Although, with hard liquor and beer, as you doubtless know, it is somewhat similar.

The third question is enforcement. The kind of question that you raise is: if you took policy in this direction, what are the enforcement problems, big and small — the kind you raise — particularly in the small stores?

Those are the questions that are very much in our minds. I wanted to tell members — hopefully humorously — that in my research so far one of the most lively things I found was a very small piece saying that Governor Carey in New York was about to embark on a rampant program of privatization. It was a little wee piece in the paper. Gathering, I think, that next year he's up for re-election, I was puzzled as to why, in that very complicated state, he would be taking such a revolutionary step, until I got some more clippings and learned the reason for this wide-open policy. He was reported as saying that they were going to open up the marketing of liquor in New York state 24 hours a day, any kind of store that liked it, big or small, and any kind of product — hard liquor, wine, beer, you name it. The policy rationale was very surprising. Governor Carey is so frustrated in his efforts to get rid of all the bootleggers who are doing a land-office business that he's decided to beat them at their own game. He feels that by getting into competition around the clock with them, with great consumer convenience at normal prices, he will solve the bootlegging problem. That I found to be an interesting part of my research. I thank the member for his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).

MS. BROWN: I've been waiting for hours.

MR. LEVI: You've been waiting for hours! I've been waiting for days! No, go ahead, Rosemary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam yields to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: I guess that's what happens when the Chair keeps changing its spots.

I think that we've actually touched on the crux of the matter when the minister established his priorities in telling the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that the first thing he takes into account is the cost. That's wrong. I think that that's a real problem we have about....

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: On a point of order, I indicated very clearly in that sentence no necessary order of priority. I was very careful to say that. Because it's an issue I take very, very carefully, I would very much like to reconfirm that I made that very, very clear.

MS. BROWN: I'm very glad to hear the minister say that, because I was very concerned when he started out, first of all, by speaking about the cost. I don't believe that the real cost we pay for alcohol abuse can be measured in dollars and cents. In fact, I think that one problem we're having is because we're so schizophrenic about the whole business of consumption of alcohol. We have one ministry which has responsibility for encouraging the consumption of alcohol, and we have another ministry which is responsible for discouraging the consumption of alcohol. So at the taxpayers' expense we have two ministries going in opposite directions. What really concerns me is that the ministry responsible for the consumption of alcohol really has no responsibility, and is not held responsible for the incredible price people pay, or that society pays, for the consumption of alcohol.

I don't know what the latest figures are, but some statistics that I have here certainly indicate that British Columbia

[ Page 5479 ]

has the highest increase in consumption of alcohol in all Canada; that in fact wine consumption increased by over 107 percent; that on the whole, alcohol beverage consumption increased by 43.1 percent; that beer consumption went up by 43.5 percent, and other spirits rose by something like 74.3 percent. The statistics go on to talk about death by cirrhosis of the liver and the increase in the number of problem drinkers, alcoholics, homicides and incidents of family violence — all directly attributable to alcoholism. In all these kinds of social and human ways we as a society pay for the abuse and overuse of alcohol. At the same time, we find that the budget of the Ministry of Health — which is responsible for discouraging the use of alcohol and is supposed to educate us not to overuse or abuse alcohol — is so limited that when alcohol abuse is increasing, a number of the services that deal with alcohol abuse are closing their doors because there is no funding.

For example, the Connection Society in Vancouver is a crisis facility dealing with various drug-related problems, but most of its clients were involved with alcohol abuse. They found that they had to close their doors because there was no funding to carry on their work. But this is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Consumer Services; their responsibility is to encourage the use of alcohol.

We also found that the Gillain Foundation was unable to carry on, to their satisfaction, the job of dealing with alcohol abusers. It is a foundation in Sidney, B.C. They had to close, yet all the information we get from the ministry....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. So many people are advising me.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough. They came back last year and asked for funding, and they were turned down again.

Aurora House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, I'm just wondering if maybe the specific references the member is making would possibly be best covered under, for example, the Ministry of Health.

MS. BROWN: No, no. I'm directing my comments specifically to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'm saying that there is some discrepancy between the amount of money his ministry generates through the encouragement of the use of alcohol and the amount his government puts into treating people who overuse and abuse alcohol.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I can appreciate the comments the member is making, but while the first part of the question is most valid under this ministry, the second part of the member's address must be related more under the Ministry of Health. Simply relating the one to the other does not allow us to canvass under one ministry an item which must be canvassed under another. I'm sure the member was just making brief reference to that and was about to deal with the estimate before us.

MS. BROWN: Actually, Mr. Chairman, the whole thrust of what I have to say is to the minister responsible for encouraging the use of alcohol — as to whether he has no compunction about the fact that a larger amount of the money which comes into his government coffers through the sale of alcohol is not set aside to discourage and educate people into the use of alcohol without their actually abusing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I can appreciate the member's concern, but we are now in a debate which deals only with the responsibility of the minister who is presently before us. Now the member is canvassing an item that might be covered, say, in Finance or in the Ministry of Health. I'm sure the member can draw the line that the Chair must draw in debate. Otherwise we could canvass virtually each and every minister. I would ask the member to bear those points in mind in her debate.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I understand your dilemma, but since the funds are generated by this minister, I really feel that this is the minister to whom I must address my concern. You know, when we read the statistics about the increase in alcohol consumption and abuse in this province, when we see the briefs which are prepared by the Indian homemakers, for example about the terrible price that those families pay as a result of alcohol use and abuse.... It doesn't seem to make any sense to talk to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). He is not the minister responsible for encouraging the use of alcohol. This minister is the one responsible for encouraging the consumption of alcohol.

I'm saying to the minister that we have a dilemma here. I start out by saying that we're kind of schizophrenic, because what happens under our system is that one minister is responsible for pushing the stuff, and another minister is responsible for discouraging it. I think that the minister who is responsible for encouraging the use of alcohol should have some thoughts on that and should have some comments to make about the whole idea of the overuse of alcohol. When he talks, for example, about exploring the possibility of placing beer and wine in corner stores, making it more available, in fact he is is exacerbating the problem. When you put beer and wine in corner stores you have, for all intents and purposes, wiped out the age limit. As my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) says, the whole question about not being able to drink until you're 19, 18 or 20 or 21 is irrelevant at that point; it will now be sold across the counter.

When we have the kind of statistics that we have in this province about the increase in alcohol consumption and in alcohol-related problems — homicide, family violence, child abuse, neglect and suicide, those kinds of things....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Drinking-driving.

MS. BROWN: Drinking-driving. Surely the minister should be taking those kinds of things into account, as well as the cost to the distributor or for the handling of the beverage, as the case may be. That's all I'm trying to say. It doesn't make any sense for me to go to the Minister of Finance and complain about that. It doesn't make any sense for me to go to the Minister of Health and complain about this. I have to complain to the minister who is responsible for finding new and innovative and more interesting ways of selling alcohol. And I have to be able to say to this minister: the price that we're paying for that, the price that we pay if you really do a good job and manage to push a large amount of alcohol on our society is a price that can't be measured in dollars and

[ Page 5480 ]

cents, and it's a price we can't afford. Now am I under the correct ministry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you make it very difficult for the Chair, because as it has been pointed out, we're virtually covering the Ministry of the Attorney-General, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Health. I think if there's a guideline we could use, it would be that the minister whose estimates we are currently discussing is responsible for the sales and marketing directly, and only that aspect, whereas the results of the sales and marketing and the problem areas that the member is referring to would more appropriately be canvassed in the other ministries that were also mentioned.

MS. BROWN: What I would like to do then is to express to the minister my very grave concerns about his activities in the sales and marketing of alcohol and to bring to his attention the incredible increase in the abuse of alcohol by women, for example, in our society as a result of his sales and marketing techniques. For a variety of other reasons that abuse is on the increase. As a result of the sales and marketing techniques that he's considering, it will become even easier for that abuse to increase. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the services to deal with the end result of the great success of his sales and marketing techniques are not there. The commitment to fighting that is not there. I pointed out a number of societies, including Aurora House, which is the only one dealing specifically with the woman who abuses alcohol and which is continually under financial restraints. I hope that when the minister thinks about the sales and marketing techniques of alcohol he will also think of the incredible price that children and other people in this society pay for the over-use and overconsumption of that particular commodity.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Just to assure the member, as I said at the outset of my remarks, maturity and moderation are going to be the twin guide-posts of policy-making in the ministry while I'm minister. I stressed at the outset of my remarks that no decisions in this direction have been taken. In fact these are very lively questions in the minds of the public these days. I think government has some responsibility to at least examine the question. So far as I know, no member in this House, with perhaps the exception of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), is yet on record in support of beer and wine in stores. In the 1969 general election I think the party of the member opposite had a policy of beer and wine in stores. As of today this government is adhering to existing policy. I repeat it again: no policy change has taken place. As I've been on record saying, it's an area where no policy change will take place unless the most compelling and persuasive of reasons suggest it should. Many of us share your concerns.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I have the honour to be recognized. I was interested in the remarks of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) when he was decrying the sale of wine from South Africa. I join him in decrying that factor. It is not the place for this House or this area, because I want to say to him that international trade has many devious ways to travel. I'd like to know where our lumber ends up. A great deal of it may end up in South Africa. I'd like to also add that a great deal of uranium from Saskatchewan ends up in South Africa. The benefits of international trade travel hither, thither and yon. It's difficult for this House to attempt to control or decry it. I do not think we should make political points on that factor, because it is beyond our province and our responsibility.

I would like to join with the words of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) when they say how bad the use of alcohol is on the public and how damaging it is to our society. They went into a great litany of facts which are correct and true. But I would like to remind them too at this time, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), that it was only the beginning of the decade of the 70s when this same Social Credit government passed an act forbidding the advertising of tobacco and liquor. That act was repealed by this opposition. I want you to know, and it should be on the record of this House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The whisky companies got to them. That's what happened.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The whisky companies got to them. In their election campaign of 1972 they so readily promised, for a few votes, to repeal that act the minute they got in. And almost the minute they got in, they did. Are the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and this party sincere in what they say? Are they prepared today to recall the act of 1970? I ask the minister if they are prepared to put that act....

The thrust of discussion in this House from our side was that we did not wish to dictate to the public what they should drink or smoke, but we want to stop the pushers of alcohol and tobacco. Yet we had opposition. I can remember the Leader of the Opposition appealing to the gallery on how we were destroying the democratic system. Member after member attacked the position because it was popular to attack it. They were playing to the gallery and the press. Today the member for Skeena and the second member for Vancouver Centre call for the act again. What are they saying? That party has talked from both sides of its mouth. I wish they would make it clear where they stand.

Do they wish to outlaw the advertising of alcohol and tobacco — or alcohol alone? If they wish to do it, let's hear about it now, instead of talking sanctimoniously about what terrible damage it is doing. Yes, it is doing terrible damage. Yes, it is causing family breakups and it costs hundreds of millions of dollars every year to repair the damage alcohol does. Certainly he's right. But are they prepared to stand up and make a statement that they erred when they recalled an act that should have been put in place? Today they are saying exactly what we said ten years ago. I do believe it's time they went on record and made their position clear. To take the position of abhorring the use of alcohol and saying that the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is pushing it.... That ministry is not pushing it at all; it is only being sold because of demand.

I call on that opposition to make their position clear. Did they make a mistake in repealing that act? If they made a mistake, they should be honourable and say so. It's time they went on record saying what they mean. Just ten years ago, for a paltry few votes and for the purpose of defeating a government, they stood on the side of the pushers of alcohol and tobacco. Today they stand on the other side. Where do they really stand? That's the question I ask. I hope it can be answered by someone.

[ Page 5481 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman when we talk about drinking it probably brings out the hypocrisy in all of us. We don't admit to ourselves what the reality of it is. As politicians we're exceptionally sensitive because we feel that we have to hold out this holier-than-thou attitude around drinking in order to seem plausible as politicians. I'm afraid that about 99.9 percent of the population laugh at us — those who drink and those who don't drink. They voted by a majority in the United States a number of years ago for prohibition. It was a lesson in subtle democracy that although the majority of people voted for prohibition, the minority felt so strongly that it wasn't deemed to be democratic, the general will of the people wasn't deemed to be served by the prohibition of alcohol in the United States.

I think that if the minister would do some research he'd find some pretty startling statistics. I stand to be corrected because I've done some cursory research in this — by no means definitive research. But take a number of government ministries and see what we pay in this province for the effects of alcohol: take the Attorney-General's ministry and the policing, the courts, the jails that have to be paid for; take Human Resources and family breakup. Seventy-five percent of the Health budget is to serve the effects of alcohol. I strongly suspect that if our budget is approximately $6.5 billion this year, the people of British Columbia, out of their taxes, will be paying in the order of $2 billion — and I think I'm being conservative — to pay for the effects of alcohol. We could cut taxes considerably if we outlawed it. I believe it's more than that. That's not taking into account ICBC, lost man-hours out of the economy and all of that.

But we are not here to dictate to the people of this province. The society we live in condones alcohol, and they want to continue to do so. I think if you took a referendum in this province you'd find that very few would want us to put a prohibition on alcohol. So what we're doing is dealing with the reality, but we feel so damned guilty about it. It's an incredible subject. You go down to the United States, and go into a restaurant, and look at the breakfast menu, and it says: "Hangover Ham and Eggs," "Feeling Uptight Muffins," and "Dehydrated Cornflakes." The whole breakfast menu says: "Have a drink at breakfast time and don't feel guilty about it".

We haven't got to that stage, and I hope we don't in this country. Even though we drink outrageously, I think as Canadians we have a deep-seated guilt complex about doing it which makes us sort of schizophrenic when we're dealing with the topic of booze. Neighbourhood pubs are basically, I think, a disaster — whether we do it or whether you do it — because by the time we politicians get through with all of the regulations on what we'd like to see in those pubs, it's uneconomic to run the pub. You can't make a buck out of it. I mean, it looks nice on paper: 15 square feet for the orchestra, 30 square feet for the pool table. We forget that the person who's going to run it has to make some money, and by the time they get finished with all the bureaucracy, they can't.

I go down to California or other states and there are some terrible taverns, but there are some good ones, from my bias. Maybe someone else would think that the terrible ones are the good ones and that the ones I think are good are the bad ones. But at least they have their choice of where to go. Why don't we call a spade a spade? The reason we're fooling around with neighbourhood pubs in this province is because we're afraid of the hotel lobby and what they can do to all of us as politicians.

Even if you take a look at the regulations — and they say that if there's a hotel within a hundred miles, don't put in a neighbourhood pub........ I mean, it's just absolutely ridiculous — the whole damned thing! We say to ourselves, "If there were a referendum. we'd have booze in the province, " and if we're going to have booze in the province, why don't we make the atmosphere around it as pleasant as possible, so that it won't be only drinking but also some social involvement surrounding the drinking? Maybe we won't get the kind of excess we now get.

I think that if you go into a square room that's absolutely abhorrent in terms of the decor and have a bunch of round tables with terry cloth covering them, then the only thing to do in there is to drink. You can't hear what anybody else is saying anyway. So you may as well drink. It's probably the most uncivilized way of drinking — the way we do it in British Columbia in the beer parlours. I don't think that people really want that kind of thing. Who doesn't enjoy going to the United States and going to a nice tavern? Herb Bruch, maybe. I just think that we are regulating, legislating and doing all of that to the people who are in the business because of the guilt that we feel as Canadians around the whole drinking thing. I think it's about time we realized the truth and the reality of it and started to do something worthwhile.

The first thing we could do is forget the hotels. They've had a monopoly on booze in this province since the beginning, and they'd like to keep it that way. But is it what the people of this province want? It's obvious that if you're only going to get a licence to serve booze if you have the required number of rooms, then you're confining those who are going to sell booze to people who are already wealthy. There'll be no "mom and dad" operations in that kind of situation. We continue to make the regulations around neighbourhood pubs, which is our endeavour to bring in a tavern system, but we don't quite have the guts to do it. If we're going to have neighbourhood pubs, then why don't we just ease up a bit on some of the regulations that make it impossible to put in a pleasant, nice pub that would be economic? You can't do it under the regulations. I'm surprised that anybody has applied, whether they're friends of the Socreds or anybody else, because I find it very, very difficult to look at a pub and see where it can be economic with all the stringent rules surrounding it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask Norm!

MR. LEA: What is this — a socialist, free-enterprise argument? Why don't you guys get together? Do you all agree on it over there? I'm sure you don't. I'm sure you don't all agree on it. But one thing I think we all agree on is that we have this crazy, stupid guilt complex surrounding booze which is driving us to drink more in our society. That's all it does — and in pretty abhorrent conditions.

I've done my share of drinking, and I've seen the most drinking on Sunday when everything's closed. That's when the real boozing goes on, that's when it really happens. It takes you until Thursday to sober up.

MR. KEMPF: Now you're going too far.

MR. LEA: I've gone too far, eh? I'm playing with another little sacred thing in our society. Either get out of it altogether — I'm talking about the neighbourhood pubs — or let us have

[ Page 5482 ]

some sort of competition, in terms of not only the price but also the kind of environment you're going to drink in.

There are certain things I think should be government-run. For instance, I think utilities should be government-run. I think the telephone company, because it's a monopoly and a utility, should be government-run. I think that the transportation systems in our province should probably be government-run.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forestry?

MR. LEA: Forestry, no. But let me tell you, when I think of the government supplying food and all the things we do in a social way.... I don't want any bureaucracy serving up my food, and I don't want any bureaucracy serving up my booze, because all you're going to get is an absolutely sterile kind of environment around those things.

What are we going to do about it? Do you know what we're going to do about it? We're going to do exactly nothing, because neither political party is willing to take it on. The minister is going to continue to regulate how many square feet for the piano in the pub; and if we change government, the minister will continue to regulate how many square feet for the piano in the pub. I just find it incredible that in 1981 in this province we have the situation we have around drinking. First of all, we admit we do it and that it's harmful to us as a society. But it's one that society has decided it wants to do.

I think we have an obligation to lead in one respect. I think we have an obligation to at least lead our young people by educating them to the problems of using drugs. Alcohol is probably the most pronounced scourge, in terms of drugs, that we have in our society, and I think we have an obligation to let people know what they're getting into as much as possible. When we start taking a look at $220 million from the liquor revenue, that's absolutely nothing. But if you were to take a look at the educational programming you could do to educate people about booze.... Don't just take a look at the money you make out of that branch of government, but look at the money you would save in Human Resources, Health, the Attorney-General's ministry and a number of other areas. Then it makes the investment much more worthwhile. Don't relate it to the revenue. I don't think that's accurate anyway. Is that after the wages of the people who handle the liquor distribution system are out? I doubt it. That probably comes out of a different vote. The wages aren't even thrown in there, so there probably aren't any profits when you get finished with it. But the savings that could be made and the good that could come out of an educational program — the savings in taxes that you'd have to collect, or the priority in spending those taxes that are collected in other areas for society — are, I think, immense. That's where I think the savings could really come in.

But until all of us, as politicians in this province, quit handling the topic in a hypocritical and unrealistic way, there's no hope for anybody.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you in favour of beer and wine in grocery stores? Answer the question.

MR. LEA: What are you, a lawyer? I'm not sure whether I'm in favour of that. I've thought about it, and I haven't arrived at a conclusion. I'm undecided on that one. I wouldn't mind seeing the government get out of the business of distribution. I wouldn't mind seeing that at all. I don't see why we're in it, and I wouldn't mind seeing us get out of it.

It's a strange thing about this House, but when you get up and express your personal point of view about something, they're all upset on the other side. They start yelling like banshees over there and saying: "My God, I thought you socialists were all like peas in a pod, that you weren't individuals at all over there." We have different points of view about this topic, and I don't see it as a topic that is right-wing or left-wing. I see it as something we all have to live with or live without in our society. It just seems to me that as long as we handle the thing with our heads in the sand and not facing reality, then we're going to end up with the worst of all possible drinking conditions in society and get the worst of all possible worlds. I don't think we're doing our duty as politicians in this province by allowing that to happen. Because we're afraid to face up to it, we're making the people in this province suffer from intolerable drinking conditions. I think it's absolutely stupid, but I don't think either one of us will do anything about it.

MR. LEVI: My name is Norm Levi and I'm a drinker. [Laughter.] I've got three short questions for the minister. I'll give him the first one first, and maybe his deputy can look it up if he doesn't know the answer. You list the ten most successful sales outlets in the province, and you have one which is referred to as "Central licensee, $28 million," but you don't say where it is. I'm only presuming it must be the one down on Carrall and Abbott or somewhere. If you look on page 22 of the annual report, you have: "Government liquor stores — ten largest stores by item volume," and the top one is called "central licensee." Where is that? Can the minister tell me?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I expect that refers to the warehouse pickup-and-delivery sales area, which is, in fact, in the main LDB warehouse where licensees.... For example, if you're a hotel or restaurant and you have a bulk order, you can go out there and pick it up, and they've got clerks going crazy punching the register. I'm certain that's it.

MR. LEVI: On the next question, my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) sent me a memo a couple of months ago and I thought I'd wait until you were here. It reads: "According to Mr. Woodland of the liquor licensing branch, an A licence is available to hotels but not to motels. The distinguishing factor between motels and hotels is apparently that to be a hotel, all rooms must adjoin a central lobby. This does not exclude alternative access from elsewhere." It's a little bit like what my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was talking about — square footage for the piano. How close to the door can you get? Does the crow fly straight when he drinks?

Now let me ask the minister this. When this A licence first came in they talked about hotels. There was a time when you had to have a minimum of 50 rooms, and part of the residue from that policy is that somehow all of the rooms must adjoin a central lobby. Now perhaps the newer ones — well, it's not all that new, but it's fairly prevalent now — are motels, yet motels cannot qualify for an A licence, because they can't conform architecturally. Nevertheless, some motels have as many and more rooms than many hotels — I mean, they're very large establishments. The minister is

[ Page 5483 ]

reviewing policy. What about this one? Either you bring the hotels into the twentieth century.... But you've certainly got to bring the motels into this century. That's the second one.

The third question I have for you is that when you made an announcement the other day about the moratorium on the scanners, you made reference to the liquor branch. You said at that time that the liquor branch was not using them. However, you didn't say that they wouldn't use them in the future. And I did make some remarks about the fact that the composition of your task force was a little uneven. Now I ask you this. You've got over 3,000 employees in the liquor branch. It seems to me that if we're going to get into the scanner business in the liquor branch, which presumably we may do, because it's sort of an efficient way, why has the minister excluded these people — that is, the union people, representing 3,000 — from participation on the task force? I know you brought in the retail people. It seems to me that that's an important consideration, because you may very well introduce that. You have an opportunity to do some education with your own employees and let them know what all the problems, difficulties, or advantages are, and let them have some representation. I think it would be useful.

So I've got two questions that I'd like the minister to answer, and then we'll put a few votes. Then we can go and have a cup of coffee, because it seems as if we've been here for about three days.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: First, Mr. Chairman, the motel-hotel question is a good example, and I think the member for Prince Rupert made a point. It's a line-drawing business when you're in the regulatory field, and you've got to try to be contemporary. I can tell you right now we have a couple of issues in files which reflect that very viewpoint, from practical people who say: "Fine, you call it a motel, but for heaven's sake, it really fits the spirit, the heart and the intent." And we're looking at that.

We have a very interesting question on the LDB cash register system. First of all, the reason why both management and labour from the LDB are excluded from membership on the task force is the same one that excludes anybody from the ministry or government. We'd like that task force to be genuinely at arm's length. Both management and the union from the LDB will be consulted. Dr. Shapiro will be asked specifically to bring them in and let them have their say. We want that task force to be as independent as possible. I've gone out and spoken to the fellows in the store-research area and I think it's fair to say that the staff throughout the stores is very enthusiastic about the new type of cash register in the store. The key issue there is shelf pricing versus prices on at the liquor store. The distinguishing features of the liquor stores, of course, are first that the product is uniform across the province — offered at the same price; and secondly, the average volume of check-out is two items per customer. There's not the question of comparative shopping with a bag of groceries. That's why we did not extend the moratorium that far. However, the task force will be asked specifically to make recommendations on the stores. The force shall have the freedom to come in and say, if they like: "Look, we understand why the stores weren't in the moratorium, but our view is that the policy should change." I think that covers the question.

MR. LEVI: Vote 49 is steeped in money.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Take it easy, Garde, we're getting to the end. It's just like the end of the session; everything is going to fall in all at once — just barely. But don't rush me, I'll lose my place when I have to read the motion. When we read these motions, it's the only time we get those people in the House. I don't know what they're doing when they're not here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Working.

MR. LEVI: Working, indeed. He's got his ear so tight to that squawk-box downstairs, waiting for somebody to talk about mobile homes or chickens, he must have a third ear.

I have a motion that vote 49 be reduced by the amount of $15,670. This particular vote of $1,438,605 is really only on the surface. We've been dealing with an enterprise that takes in over $600 million. That's why the net to the province is some $223 million this year. In looking at the size of the operation, we've looked at three specific areas: travel expenses, office expenses, and advertising and publications. That's why we've moved the motion.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 49 approved.

On vote 50: Corporate and Financial Services Commission, $73,218.

MR. LEVI: If we might remain for a little bit, we have three quick votes coming up. Oh, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is leaving already. Good lord!

We have a motion that vote 50 be reduced by the amount of $600.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

[ Page 5484 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 50 approved.

Vote 51: auditors' certification board, $5,000 — approved.

On vote 52: building occupancy charges, $2,083,131.

MR. LEVI: This vote reflects an expansion in the building occupancy charges. They're into more liquor outlets. We've had a debate this afternoon which gave some of our feelings about this. I move that vote 52 be reduced in the amount of $594,131.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 52 approved.

On vote 53: computer and consulting charges, $1,413,000.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, it is our intention to reduce this vote. I move that vote 53 be reduced by the amount of $54,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, that reduction brings to a total of $931,711 the amount which we've looked to reduce in this ministry, which brings the grand total of the five ministries to a little more than $23 million.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

Hon. Mr. Chabot requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 53 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 65: minister's office, $194,679.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sock it to 'em, Bob!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it's very noisy in here.

[ Page 5485 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the opening remarks of a minister are usually of benefit to all of us. I would ask that members afford the member the courtesy of having those remarks heard.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind protection.

As with all ministries in government, it's been a very busy 12 months in the Ministry of Energy. I think the coming year promises to be even more active as we take advantage of a number of the opportunities which are going to be available to us.

First, before talking generally about the ministry, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the members of my ministry in the various branches, from the deputy minister all through the rest of the ministry, for a job very well done. I thank them for the support, advice and assistance that they've given me through the year. I am pleased to say that the ministry's traditional high level of public service has been maintained over this past year.

It would be difficult to do full justice to the many government initiatives and activities in energy, mining and petroleum undertaken in the past year in an opening statement. I know that the members opposite are very keen to ask questions about some of these initiatives and activities and to learn what we have planned, so I'm going to try to keep these opening remarks as brief as possible. During this time, in answering the members' questions, I'd like to be able to convey a sense of the ministry's real contribution to the prosperity and security of the province of British Columbia.

Activity in the ministry over the past year has helped British Columbia meet the challenge and take advantage of the opportunities of energy security for the province. Last year a number of new initiatives and projects were undertaken. Many of these were in the areas of energy conservation and of research into the energy technology of the future. Just a couple of examples: the municipalities conservation seminar held last month in Vancouver; funding for energy conservation centres in five B.C. municipalities; wood-waste powered lime kiln at the Port Alberni pulpmill; low-energy housing projects in Vancouver, Victoria and Prince George; ongoing research into coal liquefaction, coal gasification, natural-gas-fueled cars, geothermal energy, solar and wind power and a number of other initiatives.

I'd like to talk briefly on three major initiatives. The first is the introduction last summer of the B.C. Utilities Commission Act, a comprehensive piece of legislation which serves as a regulatory device, a vehicle for government energy policy and the chief means by which the government fulfils its mandate of stewardship over energy resources.

The second example of government energy policy in action is the recent decision to request that B.C. Hydro submit an application to build a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. That decision was taken primarily to cut down on oil consumption. We estimate that by 1996 over 23 million barrels of fuel oil will have been displaced by natural gas in Vancouver Island's markets. That's a substantial contribution to British Columbia and to Canada's energy security.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Vancouver Island, the largest population area of this province, is still not serviced by natural gas. We felt the need to move quickly to remedy that situation. I want to emphasize that it is government policy to extend natural gas service, and that in due course natural gas will become available to more and more British Columbians.

The next example is the B.C. Hydro application to build a dam and power generating station at Site C on the Peace River. That Hydro application is the first to be made under the Utilities Commission legislation. It was the first to meet the requirements of the regulations of that act. It's the first project to be referred to the commission for public hearing. It's the first for which terms of reference have been struck. And it will be the first to provide the opportunity for the commission to collect data, solicit public response and make recommendations to cabinet on the viability and desirability of that project.

The role of stewardship of my ministry also relates to this government's ongoing response to proposals and policies put forward in the last year by the federal government in energy matters. These policies were drawn together last fall in Ottawa's so-called national energy program. No other single event in the energy sector has had such a severely detrimental impact on our immediate prospects of energy security. For instance, the national energy program caused such uncertainty in the oil and gas industry that the field in wholesale price inquiries before the B.C. Utilities Commission had to be postponed until the companies and others could reassess their position. I won't repeat all the arguments now, but I assure you that the government will continue to represent the interests of the people of British Columbia in energy matters, ensuring that their rights are fully protected and their best interests are being served.

The third area I wanted to deal with is government policy in mining. As we start, I d like to quote a couple of sentences from a recent address I made to the B.C. Mining Association. This speech was quoted, although out of context, by a member of the opposition in this House some weeks ago. To that association I said: "This government is out to make the most of British Columbia's mineral endowment, because mining is good business, it's good for the province and good for Canada as a whole." I went on to tell them: "At the same time that we're on your side, the government is by your side keeping close watch on what you do, and we're not afraid to have you rethink projects which do not take into account broader social and environmental issues or which do not contribute to the common good." The member of the opposition didn't quote that part of my speech, but he should have, because it's the essence of this government's policy on mining. That policy is proving to be highly successful.

Right now mining in British Columbia is booming. We're in the middle of a period of expansion which will soon achieve record levels never known in this province before. Exploration and development activity is on the rise. The combination of good government policy, industry initiative and assistance from our ministry makes the outlook for mining in British Columbia very bright. In 1980 the value of mineral production was an estimated $2.9 billion. The value of minerals produced this year is projected to increase 27 percent. Between now and 1982 new mines — those already announced for production — will contribute an additional $1 billion. Before 1985 a number of other new metal mines will be on stream. I'm thinking of the Kutcho Creek, the Adanac, the Scottie goldmine and the huge copper mine in the Highland Valley, which will perhaps prove to be the largest copper mine in North America; all providing additional revenues. Then there are the coal-mines: new production and expansion

[ Page 5486 ]

planned in the southeast at Greenhills, Line Creek and other properties, and the tremendous potential for production in the northeast.

These are exciting projects and prospects for British Columbia. Not only will they be directly beneficial to British Columbia, but they will contribute directly to the prospects of economic security for Canada as a whole. Mining is beneficial in terms of corporate investment activity and helping in significant ways to create a vital economy. It is vital, of course, in terms of revenues as well. Of total tax and royalty revenues to British Columbia in the past year, the mining industry directly contributed over $200 million, about 7 percent of provincial revenues. Activities in mining each year also contribute substantial tax revenues to the federal government; there was a total of approximately $148 million last year.

Mining creates jobs for Canadians. In 1980 the mining industry employed more than 17,000 British Columbians directly engaged in mining and related activities. Between now and 1985, 6,000 new permanent jobs will be created in mining. Those figures do not include jobs in mining-related construction and manufacturing, service industries, and commercial, corporate and other sectors.

All in all mining is good business. It's good for the province, it's good for the nation and it's good for us all. But it wasn't always so. A few short years ago the picture of mining in British Columbia wasn't quite so rosy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, it was red.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't rosy, it was red.

The disastrous policies of the previous government effectively sandbagged a vital industry, destroyed thousands of jobs, had a ripple effect that spread like a cancer through a broad spectrum of commercial and industrial activities, and undermined the confidence in government of the financial and business communities.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I hear the cries from the opposite side that we're trying to rewrite history. I knew that the opposition would protest that no such thing ever happened. Even if it did, they say, well, we've learned our lesson; we're different now. Frankly, we can't take that chance. The leopard's spots haven't changed. The tune might be different, but the song's the same. Leave it in the ground, tax it beyond its ability to pay and then, when you've destroyed it, give our resource heritage away to Ottawa in return for nationalization — an unforgivable payoff to socialist philosophy. Sure, they'll say it didn't happen. But did it really happen? You bet it did. I believe that the people of this province don't have such short memories that they will allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes about the effects of the NDP mining policies. By every indicator available, the NDP triggered a nose-dive of mining activity — a 25 percent decline in free miners' certificates, a 65 percent plunge in corporate free miners' certificates, an 85 percent plunge in new claims staked, and an 85 percent decline in new mine exploration and development spending. Those three years were down, down, down, and it never stopped. In the years 1972 to 1975 not one new mine opened in British Columbia.

Did it really happen, Mr. Chairman? Don't take my word for it. The headlines were full of it, particularly from 1974 and 1975: "B.C. Mine Claims Take a Dive"; "Mining Uncertainty Leads to 60 Percent Plunge in B.C. Claim Staking." It got even higher. Here's one in the Financial Times: "Trying to Keep Smiling Through a Bad Joke." The one that I like the best was this beauty which appeared in a full page article in the Vancouver Sun on April 29, 1975: "Mining, Our Has Been Industry; Rest in Peace, The British Columbia Mining Industry." Who do you think it was written by? It was written by Malcolm Lorimer, the brother of the then Municipal Affairs minister who is now the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. No one in B.C. — not the mining industry, not the government, not the opposition — put the case as effectively as this man who was out of work because he was a member of the mining industry caught in the squeeze by the disastrous policies of that government of the past. Did it happen? Rewrite history. Just back and read about it. You'll find out it happened.

No. The workers in Kamloops, Merritt and the Highland Valley won't forget.

MS. SANFORD: Kamloops! So that's what it's all about.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm really happy to have that member speak up from her seat because she confirms what we've always thought and suspected — that she doesn't care about the workers anywhere in this province.

The day that you care about workers by putting them out of work, by killing their industry so they don't have jobs to go to, by shutting down an entire industry and stealing out of the lunch buckets of the working man, that's the day I want to be in opposition to you.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has the floor. Will all hon. members please come to order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Those workers won't forget the millions of dollars in personal income that was lost. Those workers won't forget the jobs by the thousands that were lost to the Yukon and other areas. The small businessman won't forget the millions of dollars in sales revenue that were lost by British Columbia's supply service businesses and industries. The shareholders won't forget. Thousands of shareholders' investments were jeopardized and shrunk by millions of dollars by that destructive NDP approach to mining policy.

MR. BARNES: Remember BCRIC. What is it — $4 now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I suppose a lot of people will say in response to the things I've been saying today: "Well, it's all in the past. Let bygones be bygones." The NDP would love that, because they operate on the theory that if you ignore the past it will go away. Well, it won't go away, because it happened. We don't dare forget. It will happen

[ Page 5487 ]

again if the NDP, with its destructive and disastrous resource policies, is ever returned to power.

Those workers today have steady employment, stable and improving personal incomes and increasingly attractive lifestyle opportunities because of a vibrant and healthy mining industry. They won't forget, because there is too much at risk.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the British Columbia mining sector has now emerged from the shadows of the early 1970s. The present government intends to encourage this buoyancy and optimism in the mining industry. We'll encourage the development of jobs and the development of a stable economy, because we recognize that mining is now, always has been and always will be a real contributor to the economic health and vitality of this province.

There's just one other item I wanted to cover before taking my place, and that's dealing with the petroleum sector, where prospects at the moment aren't quite as bright. That's not the fault of my ministry or of provincial policy, because our petroleum resources branch continues to run an extremely efficient operation in the public service and brings in more government revenues than any other resource ministry. This year, I think, its total revenues are second only to the liquor distribution branch, which we talked about a while ago. Provincial government policy with respect to petroleum resources is very simple. We recognize the value of these resources to the future of the province, and our policy seeks to encourage more exploration and development of B.C. oil and gas to help make this province energy-secure.

Last December I had the opportunity to visit an oil rig in the Nechako basin west of Quesnel and Williams Lake. That is an area of the province which has not been drilled for oil or gas in the last 20 years. I met officials of Canadian Hunter, who gave me a guided tour of those sites. A couple of main points came out of that trip. The first is that there is oil in the Nechako basin. Whether or not it's of commercial value remains to be seen by further testing activity. But the fact is there is oil to be found, there and elsewhere in the province, if we only keep looking for it.

The second point I want to make is the impact of the national energy program on Canadian oil and gas exploration companies. It's one thing to read the statistics, which say that rigs are leaving Canada in growing numbers and taking our skilled workers with them. It's another to be up there at the wellhead and see the effects of that policy firsthand, and think of the damage that will be done, both to our economy and to our prospects for energy security, by these misguided federal policies.

The natural resources of British Columbia belong to British Columbians. The government of this province has the responsibility to ensure their wise development and use in a manner which brings full return to the people of the province, who are the owners of this resource. That policy will continue to be followed by this government.

In order to give some opportunity for some thought about questions and other things tomorrow morning, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the sixty-ninth annual report of the superintendent of insurance, for the year 1980.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.