[ Page 2813 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 35). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Smith)

On section 51 –– 2813

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

On section 61 –– 2815

Ms. Brown

On section 63 –– 2815

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

On section 64 –– 2816

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Rose

On section 65 –– 2817

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

On section 66 –– 2817

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

On section 68 –– 2817

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

On section 72 –– 2820

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Brummet

On section 73 –– 2820

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. McClelland

On section 74 –– 2821

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Lea

Ms. Sanford

On section 77 –– 2821

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 2822

Alcohol and Drug Commission Repeal Act (Bill 8). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen)

On Section 1 –– 2822

Mrs. Sailly

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Third reading –– 2824

Appendix –– 2824

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983

The House met at 8:01 p.m.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like the House to please welcome one of my constituents, Derek Leech of Cloverdale, who is in the gallery this evening.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the second annual day of unity with battered women which was endorsed as a national day of solidarity by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. NAC is calling on supportive Members of Parliament, provincial legislatures and local councils across Canada to raise issues of concern at their respective levels of government. I ask the House to join me in noting this very important day.

MR. SPEAKER: With due respect to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, such introductions are not in keeping with the spirit of introductions, which are basically for individuals. I would draw that to the member's attention.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,
1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 51.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll put the question to you, and I don't know who you're going to put it to.

The section of the Social Service Tax Act that's being amended lists 34 exemptions. The amendment before us now puts in a thirty-fifth which says that the cabinet by regulation can exempt anything it wants to. It would seem to me that there's some redundancy here. We should move an amendment to get rid of the first 34 and simply have a few words there to say that the cabinet by regulation can exempt any tangible personal property. Or is it doing something that I'm missing? As I say, I don't know who is going to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I presume someone is speaking for the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this regulation has really been in effect for some number of years. It is saying that until such time as a property is properly subdivided — if it's held for industrial development — it may be exempted under the normal tax and held in industrial property.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, could you refer the minister to Bill 35 for a start? I wouldn't expect him to know anything about it, but it could at least be the right bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the Social Service Tax Act amendments, described in section 51 of this bill.

MR. STUPICH: That's the one he's talking about? Subdivisions? Mr. Chairman, I need some assistance from somebody, and I look to you. I asked a question about the sales tax legislation and about section 51 of Bill 35. I'll read it. I could read section 4(l) of the Social Service Tax Act, but it's a page and three-quarters. I'll do that if that would help the minister in charge of the bill right now. In any case, section 4(l) lists 34 specific exemptions from the sales tax legislation. The section we're dealing with now adds a 35th exemption which says in effect that cabinet may by regulation exempt any item of tangible personal property. It would seem to me there is a redundancy here. We don't need the first 34 exemptions if we have another exemption that says the cabinet can do anything it wants to by way of exempting. So why not get rid of all the rest of these words and.... If this is what cabinet wants to do, it could be able at any time to exempt any item of tangible, personal property and simply say so without having this long list in the legislation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I do apologize to the member for Nanaimo. I thought he was talking about the exemptions that I give on property tax from time to time, on estates and properties that are being developed. This provision is of expressed statutory authority for the exemption of regulation of six items of tangible, personal property and one sales-type transaction: for example, draft beer, wood when used as fuel, and certain types of motor vehicle sales.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, that isn't what section 51 of Bill 35 reads. It reads: "tangible personal property that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe as exempted from taxation under this act." To me, that's all-encompassing — at least, anything that can be encompassed within the words "tangible personal property." As I read this, it gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to exempt any tangible personal property. I'm still confused by the minister's response.

Perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) can tell me what it means, rather than the minister in charge at the moment.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, pass a note to him. Help him somehow.

I'll ask another question, then, Mr. Chairman. I'm not surprised that the minister doesn't know. This shows the difficulty in bringing in legislation like this that needs all of the ministers when they can't all be here. This section allows them to exempt anything at all that they want to exempt. Does it also allow them to remove any exemption that they want to remove? Can they bring in a regulation tomorrow changing the list? They can certainly add anything to it, but having added something, could cabinet the next day delete that exemption?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the member for Nanaimo was Minister of Finance for a number of years, and he knows that there is a list of exemptions in the act, and he knows that there are certain articles that are subject to sales tax. What this really does is give us the opportunity by regulation to

[ Page 2814 ]

bring in those items which are not listed and which are exempt at the present time — as I mentioned, draft beer, wood used as fuel and certain other things which crop up from time to time.

MR. STUPICH: Just to correct the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development once more, Mr. Chairman, the member for Nanaimo was Minister of Finance not for several years, but for two months and 20 days.

In any case, as I read this section, it still gives cabinet the authority to exempt — I wish the minister would look at it or that somebody would read it to him — anything at all. In the event that cabinet, using this section, exempts something tomorrow from taxation, by using the authority that they have here to exempt anything at all that they want to, may they the next day bring in a regulation deleting that exemption? If they bring in a new exemption tomorrow, can they reverse their position the next day?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, they wouldn't...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if the House Leader wishes to respond, he could take his place in debate.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, stand up and answer; I didn't catch that last word.

HON. MR. GARDOM: One would not do it capriciously.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm certain they wouldn't do it capriciously. I'm asking if they have the legal authority to bring an exemption in tomorrow adding to this list of 34 items, to make a 35th exemption, and then perhaps a year later change their minds without coming back and getting legislative authority. I'm not suggesting they'd do it capriciously; I'm just wondering if they have the legal authority to reverse the process under this section.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member for Nanaimo knows that there are a number of legal people involved in drafting legislation, and what we're really saying is that if you run into an item that is not either exempt or taxable, then we have the authority to put it in and it may be changed, certainly. Surely to goodness you can understand that. Somebody had found a loophole in the legislation, and what we're trying to do here is plug the loophole. It's been in existence for a number of years, and until some lawyer finds out that there's a possible loophole in the deal.... That's all we're trying to do. I mean, there's no great plot behind this deal, and I'm sure that when you were Minister of Finance you had legal people advising you from time to time that they had found loopholes in the legislation, so amendments were brought in to plug them.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, may I just say that the member for Nanaimo never tried to hide behind legal counsel when he was concerned about his own ignorance on the subject.

May I just say to that minister, Mr. Chairman, one of the exemptions that is listed in the statute is soft drinks. Soft drinks are included under the heading of "tangible personal property." The section that we're dealing with right now gives the cabinet the authority to exempt soft drinks; they need not be listed here. I could go through the whole 34 items and say that none of them need be listed, because the section we're dealing with right now gives cabinet the authority to exempt every one of the 34 items currently in the legislation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, because soft drinks, the example you bring up, is already listed in the legislation. So this amendment could not exempt that.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, to the minister who is attempting to answer the question, this section doesn't plug loopholes; this section creates loopholes. What the section says is that all anyone who wants to have anything exempted from taxation has to do is go to the cabinet and say: "Would you exempt?"

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am being heckled, I am being harassed, I am being intimidated by that Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), Mr. Chairman, who spends all of his time sitting there heckling, harassing and intimidating me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll look after that. To the section, please.

MS. BROWN: What I would like to do is to call upon the fine legal mind of the Attorney-General, who is responsible for this bill, and see whether he can respond to the question put by the member for Nanaimo. This is his bill, and I think it's time that his brilliance should begin to exude across the floor of this chamber and give some clarification. I think the questions being asked by the member for Nanaimo are valid and should get a mature and clear response, which you don't often get from Peace River.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[8:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: At the risk of violating the Human Rights Act, I fear the Greeks bearing gifts.

MS. BROWN: "Greeks"? He's even colour-blind.

HON. MR. SMITH: It provides an omnibus power of exemption of tangible personal property in addition to those exemptions listed there. As I got the gist of your point, it's correct that the cabinet can add to that list. And the exemptions are still there in the statute; they couldn't be subtracted from but they could be added to. It's an omnibus additional exemption clause, as I read it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister wasn't here when I raised this question first, so I can understand....

But my point really was that this whole list is redundant because cabinet has the authority to add to that list at any time. The question that I asked, and to which I have not yet had an answer, is that by this section cabinet can add anything it wants to the list — it doesn't need the list. Nevertheless, what we are doing now.... It can add anything at all to that list. Does cabinet have the authority — a year from now

[ Page 2815 ]

and not capriciously — to delete something that it has added to the list?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, hon. member, clearly it does.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister said, "Clearly it does." I don't see that in the wording here. All I see here is that cabinet may add any tangible personal property to the list. I don't see that cabinet has the authority to remove any item of tangible personal property from the list.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, hon. member, by operation of the Interpretation Act, if you can make, you can repeal. So it's implicit in law under the Interpretation Act that if you exempt, you can de-exempt, unexempt, non-exempt whatever you like.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to make very sure that I heard the minister correctly when he said that this particular clause does not allow the cabinet to delete any of the items that are specifically listed. So they stay as is; it's just the ones that they add that they can delete. I'm wondering why the government has chosen this path. It certainly seems to have been a fairly contentious issue as to what is and isn't exempt from taxation, and we have had them enshrined in legislation before this.

Is this part of the same trend, where the government is taking more and more power into the hands of cabinet to make these decisions? If there are two or three items, as the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development indicated, why aren't we just adding those to the list rather than leaving this carte blanche to cabinet to make these changes in and out? It's difficult enough for people to know what's taxable and what isn't taxable, without having the cabinet changing it at whim.

HON. MR. SMITH: As I understand it, the amendment really arises because, upon a careful examination of regulations, it was found that some items that were included in regulations were clearly under the exemption sections, and they were the ones that the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development outlined to you earlier. These will now be included under the omnibus power. In no way try do I try to disguise the fact that under that omnibus power additional exemptions could be made, and those additional exemptions not listed in 4(l) of the Social Service Tax Act now could indeed be repealed. Those would become regulations and they would be filed and perusable. But that can be done under the amendment.

Sections 51 to 60 inclusive approved.

On section 61.

MS. BROWN: I just want to bring to the attention of the committee the same issue raised under a number of different sections, that what we have here is an amendment which cites the Human Rights Act, which is not an act in existence. It has not been debated on the floor of this House. It certainly has not even had second reading, and it hasn't been passed. I would question whether this section is in order in view of the fact that it is dealing with legislation which doesn't exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that question has been well canvassed.

Sections 61 and 62 approved.

On section 63.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like some clarification on this from the minister responsible for the Waste Management Act. It is my understanding of this that it is allowing the Ministry of Forests officials to move in and do burning in various places that would normally be under the control of the waste management branch of the Ministry of Environment. It has come to my attention that there have been occasions where this has happened, and in fact fires have been left to burn in areas where there was not supposed to be any burning — where, in fact, there was supposed to be landfill in waste management sites and that wasn't happening. The case in point that I'm mentioning is in McBride, where a tremendous problem developed because of supposed landfill, and then when this didn't occur, the Ministry of Forests officials came in and started to burn in an area that was very close to civilization.

My question is: is this amendment to make that a legal thing? I know the Minister of Environment was involved in charges being laid and affidavits and so on in that McBride situation. It's one of many. It's a general thing that has happened where that burning has taken place and the Ministry of Forests people have come in and done this. In the McBride case the fires were started. There was little supervision, little control, a real.... I don't want to go into the great details of that specific case, but it was a really horrendous experiment and experience for the people involved. Is this to legalize that procedure where the Ministry of Forests can come in and do burning in areas that are supposed to be landfilled under all the terms of the contract of the waste management people?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker. The reason for this amendment is to deal specifically with the problem that the member is mentioning, in that under the old section it said "fires set or permitted in pursuance," and it didn't define who was eligible or who could be considered as setting that fire, or what type of fires. You'll notice that under this new amendment it defines the people who can instruct those fires to be set: that is, a regional manager under the Forest Act, or an assistant under the Fire Services Act. Anyone who sets a fire for the two purposes outlined in (a) and (b) — for training purposes or to act as, say, a fire guard — in other words, for those purposes and by these people.... This amendment actually came from the recommendation from the court that it was not clear who was entitled to set the fire and what types of fires were covered.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister talks about a fire guard. What it says is fire hazard. I can well imagine that a sanitary dump, which is supposed to be landfilled every 10 or 20 days, and that doesn't happen, could well become a fire hazard. That's what happened in the McBride instance where it did become a fire hazard, I guess, because all the garbage was there, it wasn't being covered, and instead of covering it, they moved in and burned it. Now is this going to mean that if there is a contract or an arrangement that it's supposed to be landfilled, in the case of a sanitary dump, we're going to be

[ Page 2816 ]

able to go in and burn in lieu of landfilling in spite of the understanding that that's to be the procedure? This is my concern, and certainly it's the concern of many communities where they have this situation — where they have the sanitary dumps and where, for whatever reason, the landfill isn't taking place. Instead, burning is taking place and causing a lot of problems in the pollution of the atmosphere. It's dangerous as well because the fire has not been well controlled. I would agree that if you have certain people responsible, perhaps it's easier to control. But I would like some assurance that we're not going to have this burning in areas where there are supposed to be other methods of control.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think whether or not you can burn at a sewage disposal site is covered under other sections of the act. In this case, maybe it's just my interpretation, but a fire guard would be one particular use where a fire hazard exists. That would have to be defined and so recognized by the people authorized under this section, so not just anyone could go in and burn that under these people's authorization. Presumably they would be quite conscious of whether that provides a danger.

Section 63 approved.

On section 64.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to ask a question on this one, the Water Utility Act Amendment. Is this designed to ensure that developers of small subdivisions who say they will provide water will come under some firmer controls about ensuring that the water supply is adequate and consistent with the terms of their prospectus? Is that the purpose of this section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Actually, these additions to the definition section are to parallel the Utilities Commission Act. In effect, defining what is meant by compensation, service, a tenant, makes it possible to decide whether a person supplying a water service is in effect a private utility. Really, it parallels the definitions in the Utilities Commission Act, which covers public utilities. This could in effect be a private utility. So it says this is a utility when they charge rates, when they provide service, and it defines the term "tenant."

MR. ROSE: That's an intriguing statement the minister has made. I wonder what assurance he can give the House that he has powers under this new provision to compel a subdivider to provide water service to a person who purchased a portion of that subdivision. I know of a situation, as an example, not very far from here, where a subdivider has refused the person who purchased part of that subdivision access or even an easement. This person has been without water for six months. While the minister is pondering that, I will give him a little more background.

The situation is that what we need in this province is for the person who purchased a part of that subdivision and who is denied water access to have the right to go on to that property to assure an easement. This is presently not so. It has caused a great deal of difficulty, and there is not one case of precedent where, in spite of the act and the pamphlets from the ministry, this has been acknowledged. I'd like assurance from the minister that this provision in this amendment to the act will provide that kind of assurance and assistance to a person so aggrieved.

[8:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's certainly not clear whether I can provide that assurance under this amendment, which simply makes it clear that a person supplying water service is in fact a water utility. That would have to come under negotiations and under other areas that are concerned with whether or not a person who is a water utility must provide water to someone else. That would have to be something different altogether, under negotiations forcing an easement for someone who wants an easement. That would have to be in the arrangement for the subdivision.

MR. ROSE: I'm not trying to provide any problems for the minister here. I really want a clarification. If a person is designated a water utility, does that person not have to honour his responsibility as a utility and supply water to those people who seek it, and especially those people who have purchased part of the subdivision which designated this person as a water utility in the first place? That's all I'm asking.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would imagine that would be covered under section 4 in the Water Utility Act as to a person who is a water utility: "The duties, responsibilities and restraints to which a water utility is subject shall be the same as are imposed on a public utility under the Utilities Commission Act.

MR. ROSE: Unfortunately, it's not the case. People have to hire — that's a rather coarse, crude term for sort of getting legal help. They have to acquire legal counsel. Legal counsel then has to make application for a legal access and frequently that's refused. Because legal access is not acquired, anyone who goes there, even to repair a waterpipe, is subject to trespass. If the minister wants to know chapter and verse of this particular case, I would be delighted to fill him in on it. But if what he is suggesting in this particular amendment will be the case in future, that will solve a lot of problems, and not just the one I mentioned.

We have all kinds of subdivisions in the member for Langley's riding which were originally private water utilities. The original owner subdivided the property, sold off the property and then sold his own share in it. Suddenly no one is responsible, except the clerk of the city. Often that city or municipality — Langley — has refused to honour that commitment, or did in the past. So it's not an isolated sort of esoteric example. It's a very serious problem. I'm not laying anything at the doorstep of the minister from Langley; I'm just saying it has been a problem.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It's all over now?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I think the municipal authority that authorizes a subdivision then has a responsibility to continue to provide that service after the original subdivider has gone off into the great sort of "subdividers' heaven in the sky."

[ Page 2817 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose when a person forms a water utility — or a water utility is formed — I'm assuming they have certain conditions to meet. If something else happens down the road — a subdivision and so on — and the person argues as to whether he has the responsibility to provide the water or not, it's certainly something that legal counsel are going to get involved in. It seems to happen all the time. If the laws are fairly clear that they shall act the same as a public utility, and if they say "No, I won't," then you get into litigation.

Section 64 approved.

On section 65.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this section is very important to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He's not in the House tonight; I have no idea where he is.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: He's left the country, has he?

Mr. Chairman, in view of the importance of this and because it deals with Crown land and the exchange of timber licences and stuff, shouldn't we put this section aside until he gets back and move on to another section, unless there is someone else who can explain it to us? I notice the fine legal mind of the Attorney-General is also missing. He's gone with it. I see the Minister of Environment is indicating that he can explain to us exactly what is going on in this section.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wish she hadn't said "exactly." Basically, there's been a lot of negotiation going on about timber rights between the federal government and the provincial government at Pacific Rim National Park. That is just about concluded, so we can conclude the agreement and finally have it in place. It may involve some exchange of timber rights within the park for timber rights somewhere else on Crown land. This is to enable the Minister of Forests to do that.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and now acting Minister of Forests, able to tell us whether or not any consideration has been given to the people who are presently harvesting the logs from some of these parcels which will be exchanged? I have in mind a particular area that I understand is included in the exchange which has basically been the last remaining source of timber supply for small operators in my own constituency. It's Crown land and if it's given in exchange to one of the majors, it's going to mean the extinction of those small operators. I'm wondering what, if anything, is being considered to ensure that those people still have a source of supply so they can continue to operate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, the only thing I can tell the member is that any forest land outside the park that would be eligible for exchange would have to go through the due process of being considered: whether that is available, and why, and why not. Presumably that would include the rights of the small operators.

Section 65 approved.

On section 66.

MRS. WALLACE: Section 66 allows the regional manager to authorize other persons to issue permits. Does this mean there's going to be more paperwork for people in the field? I'm sure the minister is aware of the tremendous load that a lot of his conservation officers and similar people are carrying now because of the restraint program. Because of attrition some conservation officers have been assigned to deal with two locales and have lost their secretarial help. If this is going to put an added burden on those people, I'm really concerned as to how they're going to manage to deal with this. They are already extremely overloaded.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Actually, under the Wildlife Act there are various permits and regulation changes with conditions attached. For instance, this limits it to the regional manager, which might be a person in Prince George, and it may be someone that's a district manager or a conservation officer in the field. In other words, the regional manager or a person authorized by him can modify a permit or issue a permit under his authority. It's actually going to cut the paperwork and cut their work.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if the conservation officer is having to modify or issue a permit, isn't that more paperwork for him? It seems to me that's more, not less.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, right now it limits it to the regional manager only. For instance, let me assume they want a permit for an assistant guide or someone to help a guide-outfitter in the field. Right now the only person that can issue that authority would be a regional manager. This would allow the district conservation officer to do the same thing. I can't see it involving more paperwork. I can certainly see it providing a great deal better service to the public.

Sections 66 and 67 approved.

On section 68.

MRS. WALLACE: The Chairman is checking out my amendment. I am proposing a further minor amendment to this section because of my concern about the lack of any jurisdiction on the part of the Minister of Environment, or anyone else, over imported animals. I was not aware of this until we had the accident that we had at Kids' World just south of Duncan. I've had considerable correspondence with the Ministry of the Attorney-General and with the Ministry of Environment. My feeling was that it was probably something for the Ministry of the Attorney-General to deal with but I was assured that it was the Ministry of Environment.

I have a letter from the Deputy Minister of the Environment indicating that they are drafting regulations to cover imported animals and the control and operation of zoos and other such places where these animals are displayed for public viewing. In my investigations it seems that there are no controls other than if you happen to be a member of the Tynehead Zoological Society, where they set certain standards for membership. A business permit is the only thing that they require to operate a zoo.

Because of that I'm not at all sure this is the best spot to put this particular thing or whether it's the best way to deal with it, but in view of the fact that I do have the assurance that

[ Page 2818 ]

the Minister of Environment is looking at regulations to control zoos and proposing, I'm told, that it should come under the Wildlife Act, and because of my concern not only for the safety of people who visit zoos but also for the comfort of the animals who are captured and kept in those zoos, I really believe that we should have some regulations here in the province. I've checked with the federal authorities and they are looking at some importation-exportation regulations to deal with bringing animals into the country and taking them out of the country, but there's nothing to do with how they're treated when they're here or how they're housed. There are as many rules and regulations as there are zoos housing those animals. You can come up with a very broad range of specifications.

I have a lot of correspondence here on this. I would hope that the minister would see fit to take some action before we get involved in further accidents. We had a case in Edmonton not long ago where, because of an error in judgment, a child was mauled. We had the case in Duncan where because of an error in judgment, a child was badly handicapped. If it is indeed the responsibility of the Minister of Environment and if it is indeed the Wildlife Act that should include these kinds of controls, then I think the time has arrived to have those controls. I would therefore move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[8:45]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm going to decline to accept that amendment for several reasons. It adds nothing that isn't now covered under the Wildlife Act, and it probably opens up the door to some problems. In other words, what can you include under "exotic animals"? You could include almost anything, so it opens up the door to too many possibilities. For instance, right now section 34(l) of the Wildlife Act prohibits the keeping of wildlife: except by permit or regulation. The regulations now give us the authority to define wildlife. In other words, once we define wildlife, then they can't be kept without permit or regulation, and then the general regulations in section 110 apply, which pretty well covers that. So we don't really need another section. I can assure the member that they are working on regulations and looking at what can be done about controlling zoos, because most of the accidents that have happened to date have pretty well been due to human error. So it doesn't matter what laws you would have had; they would have probably happened because of human error. But steps are being taken to try to provide security. For instance, section 9 of the permit regulations gives the regional manager the right to include conditions of the permit to keep wildlife; that is, "to prevent unnecessary suffering, to provide adequate protection and shelter, to allow safe and sanitary cleaning of wildlife in enclosures, to preclude the escape of wildlife, to prevent by means of a secondary fence or barrier...." In other words, all of the possibilities are already in the regulations. What we need to do is just look at whether or not some animals that are not now declared wildlife should be declared as wildlife. So the amendment adds nothing to it and opens up the door to a lot of problems.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has indicated that the definition of wildlife can include these. Fine. Why doesn't he do it then? Every answer that I got was that it did not include anything except native animals. There is no inclusion of animals other than native animals. If it does this, or can do it, then why doesn't he do it, instead of letting it sit there without any coverage for lions, tigers, poisonous snakes and all these other ferocious animals that are imported — you name it — and displayed in zoos? I don't think we need to list what they are. If they're being displayed, then we must be sure that they're housed in such a way that they are comfortable and well housed, as he's indicated the act says for the native animals, but also that they are housed in such a way that there is the best possible protection for the viewing public, and that there is not this possibility of children putting their arms through the cage or being taken into a cage with an animal. Those are the kinds of things that there is no regulation over.

You know what I get back from someone who works in the ministry? They tell me that what we really need is a successful lawsuit. If somebody gets hurt or killed and we have a lawsuit and they get a large settlement, then insurance companies will take a second look and up their premiums, and then people will be more careful. That's the answer I get out of that ministry. So is it any wonder that I'm moving this amendment to try to get some action and try to spur the minister into some action now, not after we have another child maimed or killed.

MS. BROWN: What is so difficult, really, about understanding....

HON. MR. GARDOM: The powers are already there.

MS. BROWN: Well, the powers may be in there, but someone's not enforcing it, and that's all that the member for Cowichan-Malahat is saying. We all have heard of the very tragic experience, a matter of a couple of months ago, where a child almost lost her life as a result of the fact that even though the powers are in the act, they're not being enforced, or no one's monitoring to see that they are enforced. What's so difficult about seeing that these powers are enforced if they already exist in the act? There aren't that many zoos in British Columbia — there are some people who may say that there is only one, namely this Legislature. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that it's not that difficult a task and it's not asking for millions of dollars. It's not asking for some huge expenditure on the part of the government to ensure that when we do bring in exotic animals, when they are placed on display for educational reasons.... That's what zoos are for: they are supposed to teach us what all of these animals from other parts of the world look like, how they live and what they feed on, etc. But the fact still remains that if they are dangerous they should be housed in such a way that they don't constitute a danger to us, and that's not presently happening.

It seems to me that what the member for Cowichan-Malahat is asking for in this amendment is something that all members on both sides of the House should be in agreement with, rather than the sort of genuflecting response that it's negative because it's coming from the opposition.

MRS. WALLACE: I think that I need to read something into the record, in view of what the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) throws across the floor and what the minister has said. This is a letter from the Deputy Minister of Environment, B.E. Marr, dated July 27, 1983:

[ Page 2819 ]

"I am in receipt of copies of your letter to Mr. Richard Vogel, Deputy-Attorney-General, dated June 10, 1983, and his reply to you on June 23, 1983.

"The mandate of this ministry includes the management of populations of the 500 wildlife species native to this province. The ministry also ensures that native species held in captivity are humanely and safely controlled. At this time the Wildlife Act does not cover the captivity conditions of non-native species.

"Following the unfortunate incident mentioned in your letter, the minister has underway a review of the standards applied to the control of native species held in captivity and of the options for ensuring that exotic species are safely displayed in captivity."

You've got it under review; there is nothing in your amendment that you brought in here that indicates you're doing it, and I am saying the time to do it is now. If you don't like my amendment, bring in one of your own.

MRS. DAILLY: Following up the points made by my colleagues, I would like to ask the minister this question: could he please tell us what inspection services are available now for zoos? Because I think the whole point of the debate here is, first, once you include the other exotic animals, who is actually going to check up on the condition of the zoos to prevent these terrible accidents? And number two, who will ensure that the animals are being properly taken care of? How is this handled in B.C. now? Who checks on it and how often?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If they are not declared wildlife, we do not supervise them under the Wildlife Act. What I am saying is that we have all the powers without this proposed amendment to deal with them simply by declaring them wildlife. For instance, no amount of regulation or legislation can prevent someone from human error. If someone opens a cage and lets a child in with a lion.... You can't have locks that can't be unlocked. So that's the kind of stupidity that we have to concern ourselves with and deal with, and that comes, I think, under civil liability, and that protects the people. You can't prevent some of the accidents just by adding regulations and legislation in duplicate. I would hope that we can, and as has been indicated, the ministry is now reviewing what should be classified as wildlife.

I must say to the member that you say in your amendment: "a person who keeps animals for public viewing, including exotic animals." That could open up the door to canaries, to anything in this world, and we'd have to cover them and inspect them by regulations. That's why I think we have to take a good look at what we declare wildlife and what we have to protect.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the minister, he completely avoided answering, or perhaps forgot, my question. I'll word it very simply: what procedures are now in existence for inspecting zoos in our province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am sorry, I can't answer the member's question specifically as to what inspections are in place, because in some cases we are not dealing with zoos. Presumably the insurance companies when they cover the liability would do a great deal of that. I will accept from the member that perhaps more should be done about checking it. This is what the ministry is looking at right now. Perhaps some of these that are now not declared as wildlife should be looked at and considered as wildlife. When that happens, then, of course, our whole act and ministry comes into play.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), mentioned that the act presently covers this, and I wonder whether he would tell me what section of the act covers this. I have a copy of the act here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Basically you have to take the section that I mentioned before, section 34(l), which prohibits the keeping of wildlife except by permit or regulation, and then under regulations we can define wildlife, and then once that's defined as wildlife then section 110(2) kicks in — (d) and (w) particularly, if the member wants to reference them.

MS. BROWN: That does not deal with the question which was raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat which, based on the letter written to her by the deputy minister, stated quite clearly that the act as it now stands does not cover the issue raised by her, which is that these animals are still being kept in environments in such a way that it's unsafe to children and other visitors to zoos. That's what her amendment deals with. The House Leader says it's in the act; it's not in the act. Would you give me the exact section, because the section quoted by the minister does not cover that.

MRS. WALLACE: My question is, if it's in the act why aren't you doing something about it? Why aren't you taking some steps to ensure that these animals are safely displayed if it's covered in the act? You can't have it both ways.

MS. BROWN: Would you like me to read you all of the sections of the regulation, Mr. Chairman? Because it's not in the act. It's not here. I'm looking at the act, and it does not have anything under all of the regulations, which are here, or under the....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'll read the act into the record if that's what the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) wants.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Wildlife Act?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It does not deal....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'm sorry. Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations read the amendment to us, because clearly someone is violating the act, and in addition to

[ Page 2820 ]

that, clearly the deputy minister is not aware that this amendment is there. So if the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has the information in front of him, will he share it with the rest of the House? Where is it?

[9:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I thought I had covered that. Section 110(2)(w) says: "Prohibiting or regulating the keeping of wildlife in captivity." Section 9 of the Wildlife Act permit regulations, B.C. regulation number 337-82, states that the regional manager may include conditions of the permit to keep wildlife (a) to prevent unnecessary suffering, (b) to provide adequate protection and shelter, (c) to allow safe and sanitary cleaning of wildlife in enclosures, (d) to preclude the escape of wildlife, and (e) to prevent by means of a secondary fence or barrier the public from coming into personal contact with an enclosure. So when you relate those sections together, you find that the authority definitely is there to do it. What we have to look at is the ramifications of declaring whether or not every animal that's kept in a zoo for display should be declared wildlife. I think if the member thinks for a moment, you'll find that there are a lot of animals kept in a zoo that are not dangerous. So the possibility is there; our ministry is looking at what should be declared as wildlife so that it is, in fact, controlled by this act. More than that I cannot say, really.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, according to the deputy minister, the mandate covers 500 wildlife species native to the province. I would suppose that flies or perhaps mice are not included in that 500. If we talk about exotic animals, or non-domestic, imported animals, surely you can make the same discriminatory decision as to which ones you're going to actually regulate. But can the minister stand in this House and tell me — he's read all of the details about wildlife, the regulations, and how you deal with those — that now, today, that act applies to imported animals, be they whatever?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I've tried to make it clear that it can if we declare them wildlife. That does not necessarily apply to imported animals until they are declared wildlife.

MRS. WALLACE: But they are not declared. They are not covered. That's the point we're trying to make with this amendment; you need to take some steps to ensure that they are covered. That's the whole argument we're putting forward, and that's why we're insisting that what the minister is telling us is not really the way it is. When it comes right down to it, while the powers may be there if you do this or something else, if you add this, if you change that, as it stands today they are not covered. That is our objection, and that's what this amendment is all about.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 68 to 71 inclusive approved.

On section 72.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] You'll notice it is numbered (99) ; it's supposed to be (gg).

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's (gg) in section 110, is that correct?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. Blame it on my handwriting.

The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the regulation section, which the minister previously talked about under the other section, includes a reference to allow specific regulations to be made covering imported animals.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, for many of the reasons outlined in the previous one — it adds nothing that isn't there already — I see no point in adding the amendment. As indicated, regulations are being worked on by the staff. The amendment is not required, in that section, 110(2)(w) already covers that.

MRS. WALLACE: One final question to the minister. Can he assure me of any kind of a time-frame for when he will add imported animals — however he is going to do it — to ensure that they are covered by the Wildlife Act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In fairness, it would be wrong for me to give an exact time-frame. I've indicated that we are looking at it. I think we have to look at the various ramifications of what happens if just any animal brought into the country is declared wildlife.

Amendment negatived.

Section 72 approved.

On section 73.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not the board asked for this change, or just what brought it about.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the board has been asking for this change for some time in order that they might be able to broaden their investment practices. That's the first part of it. As you may know, they have set up a private investment committee which is advising them on ways in which they can better invest the funds entrusted to them. They have substantially improved their investment portfolio under the terms of the legislation the way it was written before. They are precluded now from going much further. The second part is to allow them to keep their own accounting files for their investment portfolio rather than having the Minister of Finance do all of that for them and then charge them, which would have been a reasonably substantial charge to the Workers' Compensation Board. Those two changes embodied in that are both requested by the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the old section 67 required that all funds be turned over to the Minister of Finance. I take it now that the board will actually be doing its own depositing, and everything will be divorced from the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They would be allowed to under the changes. It won't necessarily happen, because

[ Page 2821 ]

there still will be some negotiation. They will be allowed to now. The Ministry of Finance has adopted a practice of charging for those kinds of services, and it will save the Workers' Compensation Board considerable amounts if they should do that.

Section 73 approved.

On section 74.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister could tell we whether the board asked for this change.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, this is a change that has been recommended by staff in the ministry more than the board. But there is, as you might understand, a lot more work for the board in the last little while. As time goes by, we felt it might be wise to have the opportunity, at least, to bring in another member of the board. So we're making this provision. I don't know whether we'll appoint one or not.

MR. STUPICH: There certainly have been a lot of delays in dealing with cases by the Workers' Compensation Board machinery, but not by the board itself, in my experience. The delays have been at the advisory board levels, rather than by the board of commissioners. I have not experienced any delay in getting responses from the board on behalf of my constituents. I don't often like what they say, but I get very quick responses. It's the rest of apparatus that needs the beefing up, rather than adding one more commissioner. I'm suspicious that the government has in mind appointing another political appointee to the board and creating a job for a friend of the government. It would seem to me there hasn't been a demonstrated need for another commissioner, but there has been a demonstrated need for more advisory boards. I think we're going in the wrong direction.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know what you describe as political appointments. All of the board members are appointed by the government. We may not appoint a member. My advice has been that at least we should have the opportunity to be able to appoint another member should we need to. I am probably out of order discussing the boards of review, but in the past few months we have significantly beefed up the boards of review. We've appointed a number of new people. We've appointed a new chairman. We've developed a new system. We hope to bring some legislation forward sometime very soon to be able to help that along. As out of order as I am, answering the question, it's a different question, but it's one that we're as concerned about as you are.

MR. STUPICH: I'd suggest it's not completely out of order, because here we're adding another member to the board, and the minister and I were discussing the advisability of doing that, as opposed to some alternative. Hiring another commissioner means we won't have the money to hire more advisory board members. However, I have a follow-up question that I hope you will not find out of order: is there a vice-chairman? I know the act provides for one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, the act says that the minister may appoint a vice-chairman with specific duties from the existing members of the board. At this point there is no vice-chairman.

MR. STUPICH: I want to be sure on this. The minister said he may or may not appoint a sixth member, and it's not adding a sixth member so that there will be someone readily available to be vice-chairman. There's no connection, I take it, from what the minister said. I'm saying that adding a sixth member is not because a sixth member is needed, if we're going to have a vice-chairman. I don't know how the board works, whether they divide. I take it the minister says that's not the case. He asked what I mean by "a political appointment." I am talking about a shirt-tail relation of the Premier getting a government agent's appointment. That would be a political appointment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can guarantee you I won't be appointing any relatives of the Premier.

MR. LEA: I would like to be a prophet for a moment. I say that there will be a sixth member appointed. He will be a vice-chairman, and he will replace the present chairman. If I'm wrong, I'll buy the beer. I'll bet you a case of beer I'm right.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND; Mr. Chairman, the member is on.

MS. SANFORD: I want briefly to reiterate that if there are to be any appointments at all, they should be in the area of additional boards of review, and not additional commissioners, because that's where the workload is, Mr. Chairman; it's not in the job that these commissioners on the board are undertaking at this point. In addition to that, it seems to me that most of these boards are structured in such a way that where there is a disagreement of opinion, you have an odd-numbered representation on the board so that if there is a disagreement the chairman can cast the deciding vote. The minister is going against most of these structures for boards of this type in order to appoint that sixth person.

Sections 74 to 76 inclusive approved.

On section 77.

[9:15]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of awakening the Attorney-General, I'm going to speak in opposition to this section. This is the one which brings this act into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor.... This act embodies in it a number of sections which we've voted against, and which we've spoken against, so we're opposed to it coming into force either by regulation or by any other means. This is the act under which the government is going to start burning vouchers, shredding documents and shutting down our access to information. I'm opposed to this act coming into force either by regulation or by any other means, because this is the act that guts the Islands Trust, among other things. We heard the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talk about its failure in terms of dealing with wildlife, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) talk about its failure in terms of dealing with education, and a number of other issues. For those reasons I'm opposed to section 77, which sees this act coming into force by regulation of the

[ Page 2822 ]

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and we're going to vote against this section.

Section 77 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 12

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

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983, reported completed without amendments, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 11

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG
COMMISSION REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MRS. DAILLY: This bill of course has only the one main clause, the repealing of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. In second reading I think the official opposition certainly expressed their concern over the fact that we do not feel the government, which reaps so many profits from the sale of liquor, is really taking its full responsibility in preventing the abuses that go along with the use of alcohol and of drugs, not just liquor. As this is committee stage, I have a question for the minister. I would like to ask him what is going to take the place of the Alcohol and Drug Commission in what I understand were some of its objectives. I know the minister himself stated, in talking about a revision of the commission when it was still in existence, that it would be advising his ministry on policy matters. Then he went on to talk about the importance of the coordination of six different ministries to fight the abuses of alcohol and drugs, and said that the Alcohol and Drug Commission would be acting as the correlating body for this. So would the minister, who obviously believed the commission did have some purpose, tell the House how he is going to fulfill those objectives which he felt were fairly important just a year ago?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Nothing has changed. The Ministry of Health will itself be responsible for the work which was done previously by the Alcohol and Drug Commission. The Alcohol and Drug Commission has in effect not acted independently for the past couple of years. Those people who have been acting in an advisory capacity are still available to the Ministry of Health for purposes of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. We will be using the work of the Alcohol and Drug Commission and that section of the Ministry responsible for programs under this. Those programs will continue and nothing will be changed. The only change really is that there will not be a separate commission; rather, the purposes and work of this division will be under the Ministry of Health. Those persons who have served on the commission will still be available in an advisory capacity to the ministry.

[9:30]

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister tell the House just what his own directions will be to his ministry re the whole area of prevention, which I think was one of the objectives of the Alcohol and Drug Commission? Now that it's repealed, how is the minister going to handle, in his ministry, the whole area of prevention?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The area of prevention is one of the reasons why the makeup of the commission occurred originally. In the area of prevention we are required to seek assistance from other areas of government, particularly Education, to some degree from those responsible for ICBC, and

[ Page 2823 ]

from the Attorney-General's ministry, possibly Human Resources, and some others. It's very difficult for the Alcohol and Drug Commission to be the primary area of responsibility, in that the commission and the Ministry of Health deal with those who have suffered the effects of abuse of alcohol or drugs.

The area of prevention, I suppose to a very large degree, is education. The attitude of our society today is such that for a period of time prominent spokesmen in our society were promoting the use of drugs in a very open way, and for a time it was very faddish and trendy to do so. Thankfully, that has modified considerably. But the problem associated with the abuse of alcohol or drugs is an age-old one, and I suppose until such time as our society becomes sophisticated to the point where it is not considered to be the in thing to abuse oneself with either alcohol or drugs, we're going to be faced with a very serious problem. The members of the advisory committee are taken from the various ministries of the government who have some significant influence into prevention, and we'll be continuing to work with them in trying to correlate as best we can those areas where they may have some, if not maximum, effect.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the minister in his reply made a very interesting statement which I find somewhat disconcerting. He stated that there was a period a few years back where the promotion of drugs by certain people in our society had certainly created more abuse than any of us wanted to see. He's talking about hard and soft drugs. Obviously in his mind he separates alcohol from that. The minister expressed concern about the promotion of drugs by certain people, and there was approval from his colleagues.

Well, I would like to ask the minister, if he's so concerned about the people who were promoting drugs in the past, how he can justify the promotion by his own government of the use of one of the most lethal drugs, alcohol. I am referring to the acceptance by the Social Credit government of increased advertising for liquor and also the fact that licences have now been given for the selling of liquor at the premises where sports are taking place. If the minister is so concerned about the promotion of drugs, why does he not have equal concern for his government's own promotion of the sale of one of the most lethal drugs? If you look at the incidence of the suicides, deaths, human tragedies and social problems which come from alcohol, I think they exceed by far the ones which have emanated from the hard and soft drugs. That does not mean that anyone is condoning the use of those either. Would the minister tell us how he rationalizes that statement he just made?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll do it on my terms. When people such as Timothy Leary and some of these other freaks of the 1960s were telling people to turn on and use LSD and the rest of it, I think they offered a grave disservice to society. And there were many, many other spokesmen for this different generation in the 1960s who strongly urged the use of drugs. Perhaps to that type of person alcohol was much too mild a drug to use; they needed something that would alter their minds. It's unfortunate that their minds were not permanently altered. However, that went on for a long time and fortunately there has been a change in the minds of people.

Now the use of alcohol is quite different, I agree with the member. The advertising of alcohol has been a reality of our society for many, many years. The government decided that it would modify the regulations with respect to alcohol to permit advertising of beer and wine beyond that of the published media — the newsprint media — to improve the electronic media. The member would be well aware that we were in effect bombarded with electronic media advertising for beer and wine anyway by way of cablevision and stations outside our immediate jurisdiction.

The references to alcohol use have become such a part of our society.... Even a member of this Legislature tonight bet another member a case of beer, because it's such a part of our society. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned to the member before that until there is some sophistication in our society about the dangers of alcohol and other drugs, we're not going to make that much headway. I would respectfully suggest that until we really work hard in education and other areas of prevention, we're going to be spending a tremendous amount of money and effort through the Ministry of Health in attempting to rehabilitate people who have reached the point where the abuse of alcohol and other drugs has become a tragic problem for them.

I don't disagree with the member that alcohol, by the number of people who are involved and affected by it, is far and away the number one problem. We are not going to change that by regulation or by legislation, as prohibition proved. We have to accept somehow that our society must become a great deal more sophisticated and the concept of abusing oneself with alcohol or drugs cannot be tolerated as something to offer a person an advantage. Unfortunately that's the way it is in the minds of many people. All of us have a tremendous responsibility, particularly those in an influential position, and I suggest those in elected office, those who are in a position of influencing young people such as teachers and others and other instructors and those people who are held in great esteem by other people. But, Mr. Chairman, we can't do that simply by way of legislation or regulation. There has to be a considerable modification of attitude on the part of our society, including law enforcement officers, courts, legislators and the rest. If we can ever reach the point where the abuse of oneself by way of excessive use of alcohol or drugs is simply not even considered by an individual — as it is in some countries — then perhaps we'll make some progress. Until then the alcohol and drug portion of the Ministry of Health is going to be looking after a lot of people who have reached a very dangerous point in their life because of abuse. We'll do what we can to try to rehabilitate them. We'll do what we can to encourage all others to be involved in the area of prevention.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister got me on my feet. His reference to Timothy Leary is certainly.... One can call it timely, but very unfortunate in this particular situation. Timothy Leary, I would gather, is looked upon by any responsible person as a creep. There's no question about that. The leadership he gave, and the leadership others like him gave, was in that vein.

However, when the minister tries to defend his government's proposition that the alcohol advertising we see on the electronic media today is in any way salutary, I just have to suggest to him that he hasn't watched it. It shows the beautiful people coming in from skating or skiing, or from doing some other very vital or constructive thing, and now it's time for a "big beer."

[ Page 2824 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says sure. To you and me it is insignificant. Those ads don't mean a darn to anybody sitting in this Legislature, anybody past the mature level of adulthood. But, Mr. Chairman, those ads appear in front of impressionable kids as did that creep Leary. That's the danger. Leary didn't affect the thinking of anybody here or of our age group. But the problem with alcohol advertising on television is that it goes to those high school kids who think it's the real thing to go out there and get all boozed up. After all, they see these lovely skiers and bathing beauties and all the rest of it. That's all we're trying to say, Mr. Minister. As far as I'm concerned, that's something this government should set their mind to. It's the question of having the most dangerous drug of all pushed by the electronic media to the extent that the print media can't do it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to respond to the member opposite. It is a policy of this government to allow advertising of beer and wines on the electronic media. I can appreciate the possibility of people being influenced by the electronic media with regard to the type of car they drive and the fact that one goes from zero to 60 in so many seconds, and many other influential ads, including political ads from time to time. I would hope the young people, those that the member is concerned about, are a little more mature than he gives them credit for. I would hope the parents of those young people are doing their job of educating their children.

I want to deal very briefly and quickly with the electronic media and the rationale behind allowing the ads to take place. The ads on the electronic media were there anyway; they were coming in from across the line. You could say that if they're coming across the line, the influence was there whether it was in British Columbia or not. With the advent of the ads on the electronic media, it means revenue in the advertising field is maintained in British Columbia. It means that possibly the jobs are also created in preparing those commercials on the electronic media. It also means the liquor licensing and control branch has the opportunity to monitor those ads and ensure that they do not overly influence young people with regard to lifestyle.

One final thing, and I think it's important. The electronic media advertising, the arrangements and the policy that was made by this government, allowed for 15 percent of the air time on both radio and television to be devoted to the problems with abuse of alcohol. I'm sure the member opposite has seen commercials on television which are very well done and which indicate that the overuse and abuse of alcohol creates problems. I could refer the member — if he hasn't seen it, I could get him a special showing — to the advertisement showing the man coming out and almost going into his car, but looking across the street he sees the picture of his son on a signboard, and the son saying to him: "Dad, I hope we're going fishing or skating tomorrow." It's an excellent ad, one that tells a story — and a very good story — to parents about drinking and driving. There are other ones with regard to the Counterattack program. They're all doing their part. But I would like to think that in this day and age we aren't totally changed in our lifestyle by what we see on television. We may look at it. We may judge the difference between brand selection. But please don't tell me it's the thing that drives the young or older people to drink. I can't accept that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, to think that that minister is the minister responsible for taking care of the needs of the people in British Columbia with respect to alcohol advertising makes me sick.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[9:45]

Bill 8, Alcohol and Drug Commission Repeal Act, reported complete without amendments, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:46 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

35   Mrs. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 35) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION 68, line 2, after "subsection (4)" add:

" (5) A person who keeps animals for public viewing, including exotic animals, shall conform to standards as specified in the regulations."

SECTION 72, add to subsection (2):

" (99) Prescribing standards for operating zoos or similar establishments where animals, including exotic animals, are kept for public viewing."