1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8803 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement re selection of Western LNG Project.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8803

Mr. D'Arcy –– 8804

Routine Business

Oral Questions

B.C. Railway borrowing. Mr. Leggatt –– 8805

Small business bankruptcies. Mr. Lea –– 8805

Emergency budget. Mr. Stupich –– 8806

Increase in jailings due to economic recession. Mr. Macdonald –– 8806

Cutbacks in health care. Mr. Cocke –– 8806

Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 66). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

section 2 –– 8807

Mr. Lockstead

section 12 –– 8807

Mr. D'Arcy

section 19 –– 8808

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. Williams

section 20 –– 8812

Mr. D'Arcy

section 34 –– 8814

Mr. D'Arcy

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 57: minister's office (continued) –– 8814

Ms. Sanford

Mr. King

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 57 –– 8826

Division

Tabling Documents

Expo 86 Corporation annual audited financial statements, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 8827

Human Rights Commission of British Columbia annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 8827

Appendix –– 8827

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

We have in the gallery today Mr. and Mrs. Perry Hein from Field. I d

like the members of the House to join me in welcoming them to the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

We have visiting with us today a constituent of mine who has brought a

Vietnamese delegation here to meet with the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy). I would like to introduce the constituent and the

delegation, and have the House welcome them. They are Mr. John Nguyen,

a graduate of the University of Saigon; Mr. Huy Ngoc Nguyen; Dr. G.

Soma; and Dr. Lam Thao.

MR. LEA: We would like to associate ourselves with

the remarks made by the hon. minister. The same delegation, associated

with Vietnamese refugees in B.C., met with members of our caucus this

morning. We would like to join with the government in welcoming them

here today.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In the members' gallery

today is a very special visitor to the Legislature from Edmonton,

Alberta. Would members join me in extending a warm welcome to my

mother, Mrs. Louis Hyndman.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm

very pleased to have the opportunity — a rare one, if one is an

interior member — to introduce the mayor of the city of Vernon, Lyall

Hanson. I ask the House to give him a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER:

This afternoon we ve got another mother from the prairies in your

gallery, Mr. Speaker — the mother of one of our most senior civil

servants in British Columbia, Mrs. Ada Prentice; she is here with her

son and his wife. I'd like the House to welcome the Prentices this

afternoon.

MR. STRACHAN: I'd like the House to

welcome some gentlemen from B.C. Hydro who are visiting with our caucus

today. In the House and in the precincts are Ron Avery, Bill Best, Eric

Martin and Norman Olsen. Would the House please welcome these

distinguished gentlemen.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like the House to welcome Mayor Ivan Messmer from the city of Penticton in the sunny Okanagan.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Making it a clean sweep for the Okanagan today, I'd like the House to

help me welcome the mayor of Kelowna, Dale Hammill, and of course the

city manager, Stewart Fleming.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

SELECTION OF WESTERN LNG PROJECT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

First of all, I had expected a kit of information to be present on each

member's desk by the time the House opened again, but something's gone

wrong and they didn't get there. I'll ensure that they've either been

sent to your offices or that you'll get them later today.

This

has to do with a process which began just over a year ago, when we

announced a major government initiative to look for ways to get the

best possible use of British Columbia's surplus natural gas. An

indication of the confidence felt by industry towards investment here

in British Columbia is the fact that the proposals we received as a

result of that initiative, which was taken last June, requested the use

of some 900 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year. Although we have

a substantial — as resource. we knew from the beginning that it

wouldn't be enough to meet the needs of all the projects which were

proposed.

Therefore we had to begin a process which would

involve a couple of individual phases to identify, first of all, that

surplus in a scientific way. and to develop ways in which we can

continue to identify the surplus over the years. We appointed Dr.

George Govier. a highly qualified commissioner, to do the evaluation

and assessment of that part of the process. Thanks to Dr. Govier's

report. which was accepted by the government about a month ago, we now

have a clear and concise assessment of our natural gas resource and its

potential in the coming decades. The information presented played a key

role in us making the decisions that we have made public today.

Four

types of projects for the use of that identified gas were proposed:

liquefied natural gas exports, increased pipeline exports to the United

States, ammonia-urea fertilizer manufacturing and projects involving

ethane-based petrochemicals.

A part of the report — in fact,

perhaps the major determinant in the report for the development of

future surpluses — was that drilling activity must be expanded in

British Columbia if those surpluses are to be achieved. Dr. Govier said

that the surplus in 1990 would be 800 billion cubic feet if 100 wells

per year were drilled. three trillion cubic feet if 300 wells per year

were drilled. and 3.7 trillion feet in the event that 400 wells per

year are drilled. We had to make a judgment on which of those scenarios

to use in order to determine, A hat we would use as a surplus

determination in accepting these projects. In the judgment of cabinet,

we believe that using, a 300-well scenario as the basis for determining

the surplus is both realistic and prudent, and that comes after taking

a very careful look at the historical pattern of drilling in this

province. Based on that kind of an anticipated drilling program, we've

established the available surplus at three tcf. based on the

300-well-per- year case, as an allocation for 1990.

That

then led to the allocation of that three trillion cubic feet of gas. In

order to meet our needs of diversification, as well as a maximum

economic return. we've developed a strategy with three major

components. First of all, there's a commitment to the major new market

for LNG of sufficient B.C. gas to ensure that the governments of

Canada, Japan, Korea and Alberta recognize that we have a serious

commitment to this new market for surplus Canadian gas, and a

continuation and expansion of pipeline sales into the United States

beyond the current licence-expiry date of 1989, and a

[ Page 8804 ]

firm allocation of a 20-year supply of natural gas to an ammonia-urea plant in the province.

Last

month when we released the surplus report, I indicated that we would

soon be able to announce the LNG projects which best fit British

Columbia's requirements. I'd like to say first, though, that the

proposals for ammonia-urea, which need much smaller natural gas

volumes, will have significant impacts in terms of their employment and

related industrial benefits, and we are encouraging those programs to

go ahead as quickly as possible. I might mention that the level of

federal tax on feedstock is proving to be a major inhibitor to these

projects proceeding.

As well, ethane-based petrochemical

projects offer even greater major, future potential for British

Columbia in terms of job creation and industrial activity. While those

plants are not at their most economically viable stage right now due to

the federal taxes, the economic downturn and the restricted supply of

ethane feedstock, we intend to pursue discussions with the two

consortiums which have proposed petrochemical projects to determine

their prospects for the future as well. I and other members of the

government shall be taking up the question of the inhibiting tax with

the federal government over the ensuing months.

As most

members will know, three proposals were made for the export of LNG to

Japan and Korea. They were the Western LNG Project, headed by Dome

Petroleum, the Rim Gas Project, headed by Petro-Canada Exploration, and

the Transpac Project, proposed and headed by Carter Energy Ltd. We had

to look at a number of things in making our choice, including return to

the province on the volumes of natural gas committed to the projects,

market, production economics, financing, location, procurement, jobs,

environment and other matters.

I am pleased to announce

today that the government of British Columbia has selected the Western

LNG Project, led by Dome Petroleum, as the project it supports. The

Western LNG Project has as its members Dome Petroleum, NIC Resources

Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissho Iwai of Japan, Nova,

An Alberta Corporation, and TransCanada Pipelines. It's a $1.7 billion

project, which includes a $1.14 billion liquefaction plant and a $550

million pipeline from northeast B.C. to Prince Rupert.

The

preferred location, which has not yet been fully settled, is Grassy

Point near Prince Rupert. Construction could start in the spring of

1983, with first shipments of LNG to Japan in 1986, and full production

by 1989. Direct construction will approach 10,000 man-years, with a

peak construction workforce of 1,300. The operating labour force will

total 112, including 60 plant employees, 32 tugboat workers and 20

pipeline employees. Payroll during construction will be approximately

$58 million per year.

The Western LNG project has signed

contracts with five Japanese utility companies for a 20-year period,

and Japanese government approvals are in place to import the gas.

Financing for the project has been secured in Japan at very favourable

rates.

Mr. Speaker, in direct dollar benefits to British

Columbia for the package which we've outlined for the members here

today, the U.S. pipeline exports over the period 1990 to 1999 will mean

$6 billion. The Dome LNG project, over the life of that project from

1986 to the year 2005, will mean, in direct dollar benefits, not

including construction or operation of the plant and marine facilities,

$3.5 billion.

There is only one other item that the members

of this House would like to know at this point — and of course there

will be opportunities for questions as time goes on — and that is that

there was one concern that the government of British Columbia had with

regard to the consortium which was chosen, headed by Dome Petroleum.

While it was almost fully a Canadian consortium, there were no active

British Columbia partners involved in the consortium. I approached Dome

Petroleum and its partners with the suggestion and encouragement that

they look for some active British Columbia participation in this

project. At a press conference this morning, Mr. Bill Richards, the

president and chief executive officer of Dome Petroleum, confirmed that

he was following my encouragement and had in fact talked to British

Columbia participants and in effect told the press that there will be a

British Columbia partner in this project.

MR. D'ARCY:

I would like to make a few points in reply to that rather lengthy

ministerial statement. First of all, in his report Dr. Govier indicated

not that there were copious amounts of gas available for these export

projects, but rather that the potential was there if economic

conditions warranted it. We would point out that we must be concerned

about sufficient gas in the immediate future for British Columbians.

The actions of that minister and that government have not served to be

conducive to warranting a supply of gas both to this plant and for the

needs of British Columbia. In particular, a bill was recently passed in

this House which, if anything, is going to make it very difficult for

the industry to produce the amount of gas this plant needs.

would like to point out that the selection process for a project of

this size must not only be fair; it must appear to be fair. I would

like to ask why the government is afraid of some kind of open, expert

scrutiny of the different projects. When the minister announced that

Dome and its consortium were getting the project, I noted there was a

great deal of approval from the other side. Personally, I have nothing

for or against Dome's proposal; however, I also have nothing for or

against the Carter or Petro-Canada proposals. I would like to know why

there apparently seems to be some preference given, without any facts

known, to the proposal by Dome Petroleum. When we're dealing with such

a large amount of a valuable non-renewable petrochemical resource, I

cannot understand why there has been no open scrutiny of the factors

going into the selection process. Indeed, the government may well have

made the right decision. But I think that the people of B.C., who own

the resource, should have had an opportunity for open scrutiny of why

that decision was being made.

My final point is that while

it's encouraging to hear the minister state that the project is going

to go ahead, that the financing is in place, and that B.C. Jobs and

companies will be protected, I would like to draw the attention of the

House to the fact that the minister is a politician, and that we have

heard politicians from that party make all kinds of similar

announcements in recent years about how projects were going to go

ahead, how B.C. Jobs were going to be protected, only to find out that

it was so much wind. Again, I would like to see an independent

statement from reputable members of the financial community — indeed,

from professionals rather than politicians — that the financing is in

fact in place, and that B.C. Jobs and companies are going to be

involved and the interests of British Columbia are going to be

protected.

[ Page 8805 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I would commend to the House as a practice that

ministerial statements, which are not permitted by leave but by right,

and which always result in a reply, also by right, ought to be heard

without interruption. They usually involve some major announcement;

therefore both the statement and the reply should be heard without

interruption.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAILWAY BORROWING

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It's the same

question I've asked on two separate occasions, both in the House and

outside the House, of the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I presume the Minister of Finance is

prepared to answer it.

B.C. Rail signed short-term notes for

the construction of the Anzac rail line. These notes, due on July 2,

total $87 million. Can the minister advise whether those notes have

been redeemed by B.C. Rail? Can the minister advise whether those notes

have been rolled over into further short-term debt, or are they being

capitalized into the long-term debt of the company?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I was prepared to answer the question yesterday, but the member was not

in his seat at the appropriate time during question period. I'm happy

to respond today.

The member will recall, I'm sure, that

during the 1981 legislative session, B.C. Rail's borrowing and

authorized capital stock limits were increased to facilitate financing

of the construction of the rail component of the great northeast coal

project. Then, by an order-in-council which was approved and ordered

last September 24, B.C. Rail was authorized to borrow the sum of $325

million through the issuance of notes for the purpose of constructing

the Tumbler Ridge branch line. The notes are issuable at any time for a

term not later than March 31, 1983. The $87 million in rail notes due

July 2, to which the member has referred on two or three occasions,

were issued under that authority. The notes were redeemed on July 2 and

replaced by a note due August 3, 1982. The amount of the replacement

note is $112 million, representing the $87 million in borrowings up to

March 31, 1982, and a further $25 million borrowed between April I and

July 2, the date referred to earlier. This is an interim measure

pending the outcome of final discussions on financing arrangements with

B.C. Rail.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and I have met on several occasions in

recent months with officials and members of the board of directors of

the British Columbia Railway, and those negotiations with respect to

the ultimate disposition of these notes will be resolved with the

railway. But the discussions are ongoing, and I cannot therefore

contemplate what will occur in the final instance.

The

member also asked a supplementary question on B.C. Rail's application

of the $45 million provincial government payment which was made at the

end of the last fiscal year — that is, '81-82. As I've indicated on

previous occasions outside the House, it is up to the railway rather

than the government to decide how these funds are recorded.

Mr.

Speaker, in focusing on the relatively narrow part of northeast coal, I

hope the member appreciates that this is one of the most exciting

projects in the province's history, and undoubtedly some expenditures

are going to be incurred which will have to be capitalized. The fact

remains that that member has been asking largely just about the B.C.

Rail aspect of a very large, complex and exciting ongoing project in

the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: In

answer to my question, the minister has said that there are ongoing

discussions, that some expenditures will have to be capitalized. Unless

my hearing is wrong — and it isn't wrong — this government, through

that minister, promised it would be pay as you go. Is the minister now

indicating to this House that it is no longer the policy of this

government that the construction of the Anzac line will be pay as you

go? Will he now admit to the House that there is going to be a

long-term debt burden on B.C. Rail as a result of the Anzac line?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, the member's conclusion is incorrect, and it also asks about future government policy.

have indicated that because of the importance of the B.C. Rail

component in northeast coal, as any reasonable member of this House

would expect, there are discussions between the minister responsible in

this Legislature for the British Columbia Railway Company and the

Minister of Finance. Those are ongoing discussions.

SMALL BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask this question in the midst of economic

panacea and euphoria, but figures from the federal Department of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs released yesterday show that for the

first six months of 1982, B.C. business bankruptcies rose by 70 percent

over the same period last year, while the Canadian average was running

at 36.9 percent. To this date, some 422 B.C. businesses have declared

bankruptcy.

Has the minister decided to offer relief to

these businesses and potential bankruptcy victims by establishing a

program similar to

section 11 of the American bankruptcy code, which

would give small business interests in the province the opportunity to

have a government-approved assessor review businesses, make assessments

and report back to the courts before legal bankruptcy procedures take

place? This question is to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult when one does not know — and there

were interjections — to which minister the member is directing a

question.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would repeat the question.

MR. LEA: No, I won't repeat it all.

Has

the Minister of Finance decided to help small- and medium-sized

businesses in this province? Has the government decided to bring in

something similar to

section 11 of the American bankruptcy code, so

that at least those businesses will have an opportunity to have a

government or an independent assessor take a look at the particular

business before allowing bankruptcy to go through.

[ Page 8806 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, there has been a clear indication, from the time that the

Premier announced on February 18 the restraint of government program,

through the budget and a variety of debates which have occurred, that

this government is doing a great deal for small business in British

Columbia.

I also would observe, Mr. Speaker, that the second

part of the question relates to future government policy. Discussions

are continuing with respect to additional ways in which we can assist

employees, employers, individuals and firms in the province of British

Columbia in what is admittedly recognized as a difficult world

recession.

MR. LEA: With B.C. bankruptcies up 70

percent over the same period last year under the economic policy of

this government, I'd like to ask the same minister: will you please

stop doing things for small business? We can't afford it.

EMERGENCY BUDGET

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The

minister is reported to have admitted to his cabinet colleagues that,

as the opposition forecast in April, current revenues are substantially

less than budget forecasts, and that a turnaround in the fall will not

materialize. Inasmuch as the minister has been voicing these dark hints

to selected members of the media, is he now prepared to present to this

House revised revenue estimates and prospects for the economy?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I gather the question is based on news reports. I hope no

one is offended when one asks if it was the same news report which

indicated that the cabinet met until dawn the other day, when in fact

the meeting concluded at about 11 p.m.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, you heard the

preamble, and I think the minister heard the

question. The question was: is he now prepared to present revised

revenue estimates and prospects for the future to this House?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH:

The Premier is reported to have recently told a group of government

officials that there may be tremendous chops in whole programs. Has the

Minister of Finance decided to announce in this House what further

cutbacks in government programs will be implemented to rescue the

minister's sagging budget?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question is based on supposition, and I am unable to answer it.

INCREASE IN JAILINGS

DUE TO ECONOMIC RECESSION

MR. MACDONALD:

My question is to the Attorney-General. Because of widespread

unemployment in the province of British Columbia, a great many people

are going to jail because either they can't pay a fine or it's such a

hardship that they elect to go to jail in place of the fine. The

figures indicate that the number of people in jail is up about 25

percent for short-term offences. These are mostly poor people. Has the

minister decided to increase such things as the police crime-prevention

units or the community accountability panel experiments, such as at

Cedar Lodge? The policy of fining people according to their means,

rather than a standard fine, taken up through the Judicial

Council....What are you doing about it? It's costing a heck of a lot of money; it's also an injustice.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I regret to say that the member's question is based upon some rather

questionable statistics. We have been monitoring the effect of the

present economy upon actions in the courts, and appropriate actions are

being taken to ensure that the people who are incarcerated are afforded

every opportunity to take alternative programs.

CUTBACKS IN HEALTH CARE

MR. COCKE:

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Can the

minister confirm that his restraint program imposed on our major

hospitals has cut operating-room use and is resulting in longer

elective-surgery waiting lists? I can give him a number of examples,

but I think he knows about them as well as I do.

HON. MR. NEILSEN:

I don't have all those statistics immediately available. Whether one

can directly associate the number of surgical procedures which may have

taken place over the past few months with respect to the similar number

at the similar period of time last year would necessitate a study by

people in the ministry. I'd be pleased to try to get the statistics

from this year and last year to determine if the member's suggestion is

correct or valid.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, perhaps

I could respond to some questions taken as notice yesterday from a

number of members, information which has been made available.

During

question period yesterday, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

brought to the attention of the House a news report with respect to

Jamey Woollard, a six year-old youngster with Perthes' disease, who

requires rehabilitation treatment. Yesterday afternoon I spoke to the

administrator of the Children's Hospital, John Tegenfeldt. He confirmed

the following information. Jamey had been scheduled to be admitted to

the new Children's Hospital on Monday, July 5. The administrator

advised me that due to a flood of emergency admissions that day, they

were unable to admit Jamey. I'm told that Jamey's physician advised

that if the boy's admission was delayed for a short period of time, it

would not affect his condition. This was confirmed by Mr. Tegenfeldt.

I'm pleased to report to the House that I think before the questions

were asked arrangements had been made by the hospital for the admission

of the youngster on July 18, when he's due to receive the necessary

treatment, provided there are no other complications.

Subsequent to the question from the member for New Westminster, there were other questions from other members.

The

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) referred to the case of a

13-year-old girl, reported to be suffering from a severe hearing

disability. Upon looking at the Blues, I found that the member did not

provide me with the patient's or physician's names, so we were unable

to check out the matter.

The member asked: "Has the minister decided to restore funding to the investigatory unit for learning disabilities at

[ Page 8807 ]

the

new Children's Hospital?" I believe the member refers to the

investigatory unit for learning disabilities, which my staff believes

is actually the clinical investigation unit. The staff checked with the

Children's Hospital to determine whether the program has been

cancelled. We're informed that there are eight beds currently operating

in the unit. If the patients' conditions are serious, they would

definitely be admitted; if elective, they would be admitted as soon as

possible. Mr. Tegenfeldt, the administrator, went on to say that no

outpatient hearing programs have been cut. Although there is a waiting

list, this is not due to any cutbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I was

asked by the member for New Westminster about the family and children's

unit at the Eric Martin Pavilion. The member stated: "As a result of

budget cuts, the Royal Jubilee Hospital board is forced to shut down

the family and children's unit at the Eric Martin Pavilion. In view of

the fact that no alternative facility remains on the Island, has the

minister now decided to restore funding for that vital service?"

Yesterday, I suggested that the member for New Westminster may be

incorrect in his statement that the unit had been closed. Today, after

having checked with staff, the information was provided that the unit

is not closed. The program referred to....

MR. COCKE: Was cut in half.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Yesterday he said it was closed; now he says it's cut in half. It now

operates around the clock five days a week with six beds. Children

return home on the weekend on temporary passes. In addition, the

operational audit being conducted at the Royal Jubilee Hospital will

examine the program's operation to determine whether any improvements

can be made. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the ministry has approved the

planning of a 25-bed child and adolescent unit at the Queen Alexandra

solarium. The unit is not closed. The member was confusing it with some

other unit.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace)

also had a health matter brought to her attention yesterday. The member

referred to an eleven-year-old girl currently at the Ministry of

Health's Maples unit in Burnaby. The member pointed out that The Maples

has been designated for twelve year-olds and older. In this case a

deliberate exception was made to place the youngster in that facility.

Staff investigated the case and have provided some information. The

child in question is currently undergoing a 30-day assessment, which

will be completed July 18. Pending the resolution of the assessment, no

determination has been made as to what treatment will be provided. If

the assessment indicates that treatment is required, the staff have

assured me that the treatment will be provided at The Maples or at

another suitable facility.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 66.

MR. SPEAKER:

May we have order, please. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) will come to order: the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) will follow suit.

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, during the course of second reading on this bill I asked

the minister.... I'm hesitating because I do want the minister's

attention on this particular question. I know he's busy.

The

minister had a press conference this morning and announced a number of

major projects and selection of the LNG plant location and all of these

things. As anticipated, he failed to mention a date or a commissioner

under this act which we're now discussing to be named to look at the

possibility and to come down with recommendations on a proposed natural

gas line to Vancouver Island and a fertilizer plant complex proposed by

a consortium of companies for the Powell River area, which I happen to

represent. Under this section, which will allow the minister to appoint

a commissioner, can he tell us if he has decided on the name of a

commissioner? And when will he be announcing the appointment of that

commissioner and the commission to look at the proposed natural gas

line to Vancouver Island?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members,

I would advise all members again that the debate must be strictly

relevant under the standing orders which guide us in committee.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I can't answer an), differently than during second

reading of the bill when the same question came up. This bill, when

it's enacted, will allow us to appoint a single commissioner. It's my

preference at the present time that a single commissioner be appointed

for the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. I said, when we

announced the public hearings would be held, that we would expect that

the appointment would be made this summer, and I intend that it will.

We will make the appointment. I would hope, within the next two weeks,

and then it would be up to the commissioner chosen to decide on his

next course of action.

Sections 2 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat concerned that the flexibility given the

minister under this section, to vary conditions after a process of

approval of an energy project or an energy project removal certificate

has gone ahead, creates a situation where, as we have often claimed

about this government in this House, they can change the Ground rules

in the middle or even at the end. They can move the goalposts. We have

made the point, and industry has made the point, on many occasions that

before industry or

[ Page 8808 ]

even

a public corporation such as B.C. Hydro can properly commit huge

amounts of capital — which will be captive, I might point out — to any

major energy project, they need to have some assurance that the rules

are not going to be changed at the last minute. This

section gives a

great deal of discretion to that minister and that government or to

some future government to make arbitrary changes in the conditions of

approval, and we oppose this. We think it's an ill thought-out

section

and changes should be made in it.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to

make another point. It will be brief, and you may consider it not

strictly relevant, but I'm hoping you're not going to notice. I need to

make it under one of these sections and I'm choosing to do it under

section 12. When a major corporation — the one I want to bring to the

attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, is B.C. Hydro — goes ahead

with the preliminary work on a major project, whether it be Hat Creek,

Site C or the Murphy Creek project in my own constituency, or the

Stikine proposals and so forth, in preparation for going to the

Utilities Commission with a project proposal, they must do a great deal

of preliminary work. Many of the objections against B.C. Hydro and

government policy that we hear in the province today at the local level

come from people who say: "There are surveyors and drillers; seismic

surveys are going on, other resource values are being interfered with,

and there's no public body that other industries and private

individuals — owners of land, farmers, and so forth — can go to and

have some conditions spelled out, or get a public hearing." I would

like the minister to consider making a change that would require a

major corporation, when doing the preliminary work, to go before a

simple panel of the Utilities Commission to lay down the basic ground

rules of those investigations. Only this morning I received three

telephone complaints from the residential communities of Oasis and

Rivervale, immediately to the north of Trail, about drilling and

seismic work by Hydro and their contractors for the Murphy Creek

proposal.

In the interests of the public, and in the

political interests of this government or some future government, there

should be some way for the public to express their concerns before the

Utilities Commission when a corporation is going ahead with

investigations into whether or not they should apply for a project

approval certificate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd be

happy to consider that, Mr. Chairman. I see a lot of problems in

attempting to hold public hearings at a time when there is necessarily

no information available. If that kind of hearing was very restricted I

suppose it could be done, but I see a lot of difficulties with it.

would just remind the member that all of the normal statutes already on

the books apply to B.C. Hydro when it's doing any preliminary work of

this kind — the Water Act, the Land Act. The Ministry of Lands, Parks

and Housing getting involved with access in one of the northern

developments just recently is proof that Hydro doesn't have a free

reign to do whatever it wishes. It must comply with whatever statutes

are available and on the books at the present time. But we'll take that

as a fair comment and give it further consideration.

On the

other question relevant to the

section regarding the delegation of

powers, we're not widening that very much. Anything that is spelled out

in this amendment has to be spelled out in the certificate, which is

issued to the proponent as well. In other words, the proponent will get

his certificate, which will say that in certain circumstances those

spelled out in the certificate so that the proponent knows, not exactly

what might come up, but that if something special comes up, such as an

urgent pollution problem during construction, or a safety hazard during

construction, we could move in and say: "We're going to vary that

certificate — within the limits of the certificate that you already

have." That will all be spelled out. It will only allow us the

opportunity to make some variances in it.

MR. D'ARCY:

The minister states that normal statutes do apply to B.C. Hydro. Of

course they do. The point we're making is that the normal statutes

simply aren't sufficient, I think no one who has not experienced having

a major corporation simply move on to their property — in their front

gate, their back yard — can properly understand what I'm talking about.

There are cases, particularly with Murphy Creek, where drilling,

blasting and seismic work are going on virtually within the

residentially settled city limits.

If this were taking place

in the middle of Point Grey or West Vancouver or, quite frankly, in

downtown Tsawwassen, I think you would have some complaints. That's

what I'm bringing to the attention of the minister. I'm not suggesting

that we have a complicated bureaucracy to delay work which may be

necessary. In fact, I would point out to the minister, as I'm sure he

well knows, that we already have a project impact committee in place

particularly in the Trail area, which has Hydro representation on it,

representation from the general community and appointees from the

regional district of Kootenay boundary.

What people really

want is some place they can go, a place with some authority, when they

have a complaint. They don't necessarily want to prevent the

operations; they want some way to air their concerns about somebody

driving a Cat through a creek which supplies their water, for instance;

or somebody cutting down trees which they planted in their garden and

have spent many years watching grow. Those are the concerns that we

want to express to the minister. We're not asking for a bureaucracy;

we're simply saying that the general public would like some bureau or

body to go to. In my view, that body's already in place. What we need

is some requirement that Hydro listen to the concerns of that body.

Sections 12 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, it's kind of a waste of time to talk about

consolidations, mergers, and the acquisition of shares in a public

utility when this allowed Inland Natural Gas to be raided. Then they

bring in a bill to correct the situation. It's just fine for future

raids, but it does nothing to protect the consumers of Inland Natural

Gas.

It was a totally preordained situation. The government

and the minister knew about this takeover a long time ago. About

Christmas of last year, they knew that Jim Anderson and Ben Macdonald,

without putting up a red cent of their own, were going to take over one

of the major natural gas distributing utilities in the province of

British Columbia. We knew that their partner was Trans Mountain Pipe

Line, and that they were going to do a pretty good job of raiding the

treasury of that company along the way and getting them to put up the

financial pokey and give the necessary guarantees with the result that

that company was going to be badly

[ Page 8809 ]

damaged. Imperial has already sold out of it and the others are trying to.

The

government and the minister knew all this. They pretended to fight it,

but when the facts came to light that these were Social Credit bagmen,

that both Anderson and Macdonald were raiding this thing for their own

purposes. not in the interests of the gas consumers of British

Columbia.... When that came to light publicly, the minister made an

announcement: "The Attorney-General will intervene." But that was a

farce. That announcement was made before April 2 of this year, and the

commission adjourned the hearing that they had called publicly on April

2 without giving objectors a chance to point out that once again you've

let the horse escape the barn and run on the hills before you close the

gate.

It was farce. It was a Social Credit takeover plot

right from the beginning, as a reward to political friends. The thing

is laughable. It's straight Laurel and Hardy stuff in any explanation.

It's stupid.

An order-in-council was passed on April 15:

don't transfer shares. The boys had already transferred their shares;

they had taken control of the utility. Now you bring in a bill and make

it retroactive — to when? July 9, just enough so you won't affect this

takeover.

You've got a public utilities commission, which

held a hearing.... And I can't fault them. They held a good

hearing. Do you know the conclusions they came to? They came to the

conclusions that the thing was irreversible; there was nothing they

could do about it. That's on page 27 of their report. They came to the

conclusion that it s not in the public interest, but we can't do

anything about it. They came to this conclusion:

"It is readily understandable how the steady income of a

utility can be attractive in order to finance real estate development and stabilize

the cyclical nature of those operations. The commission believes that the interests

of the controlling shareholders of TMA" — that's Anderson and Macdonald;

75 percent Anderson, 25 percent for poor Ben — "whose principal activity

at present is real estate development and other non-utility ventures, could

be in conflict with the objectives of a public utility."

So they've said you've sold out the consumers of natural gas of the

province of British Columbia to your political friends. They've said it

in nice language. They've said they're going to use that company for

their real estate developments, and I'll go further and say that they'll

use it also for Sun Mask Petroleum, where the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson)

has 50,000 escrow shares....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, get on your feet and say what it is. He has 50,000 shares in

escrow, a close association with Jim Anderson. You're the Deputy

Speaker of the House, and you've just sold out the consumers. The

commission says the thing is not in the public interest, and you've

done nothing about it. The thing has just slowly come down the line so

that you can reward political friends. The commission has said it, if

you don't believe me. They've said they're going to use this Inland

Natural Gas for their real estate developments. Then they say: "We will

not give our approval." But they already have 93 percent of the shares

and have registered — what is it? — 35 percent. They can register up to

50 percent and keep the others in their pocket, if they like, and it

makes no difference. They get the dividends on them; they've got

control.

No government, Mr. Chairman — I won't say the hon.

member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) at this point — can blunder quite that

badly. You can't. There's got to be a dark design there, and the thing

just unfolded as planned. Do you know what the next stage of the plan

is going to be? If this gang opposite wins the next election, they'll

give them the gas division of B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What a screwball!

MR. MACDONALD:

Everything I've said so far has come true, day after day. Don't think

that you won't try to — what's that ugly word? — privatize the gas

division of B.C. Hydro too. That's the next step. It's been a series of

incomprehensible — but really comprehensible — blunders, pursuant to a

dark design, and it's been funny.

How much did it cost the

Utilities Commission to hold these hearings to reach a conclusion that

they won't approve the takeover when the boys have taken it over

already and you can't reverse it? Is it a charade or public

entertainment, taking the time of learned counsel and all that? That

order-incouncil — what a joke!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Do you call yourself "learned counsel"?

MR. MACDONALD:

No, I don't have to be learned to see through this thing and to see

what's going on. It's just ridiculous to gut a public utility and allow

it to be used as a goblet to be drained for other purposes.

Get

up on your feet now. Mr. Minister, and tell me that you're going to

apply this legislation in such a way as to honour the decision of the

Utilities Commission. All you have to do is backdate that to July 9.

Tell me why it's July 9. Why isn't it April 2? That's another section,

but we're talking about the application of this thing.

think this is the most ridiculous sellout of government. Who's going to

pay for the incidental speculators who picked up money along the, way

as the boys bid $20 that was not going to be put up by them, and the

people who got the buzz, like R.J. Bennett the Premier's brother, who

buys in and makes n $5 a share for 6,000 shares — he and his family?

hat's that? It's only $30,000. Who pays that in the long run You don't

have somebody making money and nobody paying for it. Who pays? I'll

give you three guesses, and the answer is that the natural gas

consumers of the province of British Columbia — residential, industrial

and commercial — will pay for it. Nobody else. Maybe Jim Anderson is

going to pa for it. Nonsense! This is a corporate raid, and your next

step is going to be to deal with Hydro if you're ever re-elected. It's

time that we got rid of this government. I

HON. MR McCLELLAND:

I guess all I have to do is to remind the House that the member making

those irresponsible statements is a member of the same party which

houses the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who makes wildly

irresponsible statements that throw the stockmarket....

[ Page 8810 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the minister has trespassed into an

entirely different area. Let him answer this case and not make these

smear remarks.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I

know how touchy the members opposite are about the irresponsibility of

their actions in the last few weeks; so touchy, in fact, that they

shipped the member for Vancouver Centre off to Europe for a month so

the people of British Columbia couldn't see him anymore.

Here

are the problems, and I admit that we were dealing with a piece of

deficient legislation which just happened to be passed by the former

NDP government when that member who just took his seat was the minister

responsible for the act. We have taken steps to change it. We made the

mistake of not changing NDP legislation in time to be able to deal with

this matter in a little better way.

I'd like to answer a

couple of the questions regarding the matter of this

section as it

relates to the takeover of Inland Gas by TMA Western Resources. I don't

know whether the member has read all of the decision or not, or whether

he's just read the parts that titillate his imagination. But the

commission has done a splendid job in this matter. I believe they have

set the stage so that the public interest will be protected under the

terms of the amendment which is now before this House.

Frankly,

I find retroactive legislation abhorrent. I do not like it, and I will

not be part of it — especially in the area of investment confidence and

investment opportunity in British Columbia.

The commission

in making its decision has set out a number of conditions within its

decision, including the requirement that the company as it is presently

structured not dilute the consumers' interest in Inland Natural Gas by

entering into other non-utility areas such as real estate — as the

member points out. The commission says that it is in the public

interest that shares of a public utility be widely held, even though

that's a condition which is changing rapidly across North America. In

British Columbia we don't want that change to take place — hence the

reasons that we're putting forth this legislation.

Mr.

Chairman, the commission has served notice that major items of interest

that will impact on the consumers of Inland Natural Gas are met,

including the way in which interest deductions are made, newly created

debt, FIRA approval, organizational structures, sound management

continuation of Inland and all of those other reasons contained within

that decision. They're all there.

MR. MACDONALD: They are not.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Yes, they are. I wish that member would read the decision very

carefully and understand what will happen, and consider the

section of

this bill we are presently considering which deals with consolidation,

amalgamation and merger. Should anything under this

section affect the

status quo within those terms of reference, the company will come under

the control of the commission. Future activities will be fully

regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. We chose July 9 as the

date, because that was the date the bill was introduced into the House.

know that member is not really interested in understanding the facts in

this case. But I get a little tired of members in this House carrying

on personal vendettas and personal attacks, not only on people who

don't have the opportunity to respond for themselves, but more

importantly within the confines of this House where they have full

immunity for the things they say. If that second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) is accusing me of using my political influence or

position to reward political friends, I dare you, Mr. Member, to say

that outside the House. I'll have my lawyer in your office this

afternoon. I'll sue you if you're making that kind of charge, and I

would expect that other people in this House might want to do the same

thing. But you haven't got the nerve to make that kind of charge

outside this House, because you know you can't back it up, and you

haven't got the guts to go to court. But make it, Mr. Member, and I'll

sue you immediately.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman,

there are such things as legislatures. Part of the duty of a legislator

is to speak up freely, without having to go through lawyers, courts and

all that kind of thing. Why do you think there is legislative immunity?

It's so that these things can be said. Can I prove what the minister

did on such and such a date? I didn't say I could.

You have

lain down before this application, done nothing, and allowed it to

stream right along. Talk about the legislation of the NDP There's

nothing wrong with the section, had you moved in time. But whenever a

time limit came to stop this transaction you moved a few days too late.

Come on! Why are you not making this July 9?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is July 9.

MR. MACDONALD:

Whether you and I go into court has got nothing to do with it. What has

got a lot to do with it is the interests of the gas consumers of

British Columbia, and you've sold them out. And don't tell me I don't

know what I'm talking about. I went before the commission, and I've

spoken publicly on this matter. I don't think anything I've said has

been seriously challenged.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It wasn't worth challenging, the stuff you peddled.

MR. MACDONALD: It's just peddling, eh?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: You just think it's a funny thing that....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think it's a cheap political trick.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, maybe it's time that we reminded ourselves

of the "strictly relevant" clause. We're dealing with

section 19 of the

act. I would ask both the member speaking and the minister to contain

their remarks specifically to

section 19.

MR. MACDONALD:

What's the use of having this kind of thing? This minister is the one

who said there were welfare people in the Empress Hotel. You should

have your mouth washed out with soap and water. You said it in this

House too. This is not personal. This is about the future of the gas

consumers in this province.

[ Page 8811 ]

You

go off on a whole bunch of tangents. You said the commission had

imposed conditions on this thing, and I asked: "Where? What page?" I

referred you to their decision, starting on page 28, where they say:

"We are not imposing conditions." Of course they're still a regulated

utility in the future. But they say this takeover has happened, and

there's nothing we can do about it, that it's against the public

interest. And you let it happen.

I don't know whether

there's anything else worth replying to. I think it's a sad day for

British Columbia when this kind of thing.... You say it's a

personal attack. Why should I bother replying to that kind of thing?

There are times in a Legislature when you have to bring out what's

happening in the province. I do that, and I'm not going to be afraid of

doing it.

I say you've allowed a small group, led by

Macdonald and Anderson, to raid this utility. You could have stopped

it. You had lots of opportunity; you didn't stop it. I say it's going

to be a bad day for the people of this province who use natural gas;

they're going to pay for it through their natural gas rates. They've

been sold out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That member is

attempting to frighten the public of British Columbia in the same way

the member for Vancouver Centre did with the Canadian Imperial Bank of

Commerce statements that he made. The public will be protected by this

act, particularly by this section. I'd advise him to read the

section

heading again; it is "Consolidation, amalgamation and merger." It will

provide for full public review and control of the regulated utility —

and you admit that it's a regulated utility — and there will not be an

opportunity for the consumers of Inland Natural Gas to be disbenefited

by any takeover, merger or operation at any time. Our Utilities

Commission will not allow the consumers of Inland Natural Gas to be

hurt in this matter. They will not be hurt. The conditions are there

and available for us to continue those reviews under this new

section

of the act, and that will be done without fear or favour.

I'd

like to point out again that the immunity of this House doesn't allow a

member to make any kind of irresponsible statement he wishes, nor to

hide behind what may be libel. I take very seriously the indication,

the hint, that I have done something wrong and benefited from — ny

political position or had someone else benefit from my political

position. I say again: if that member ever said that outside this

House, I would take immediate action.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'm not intimidated in the slightest. I've talked about what I believe

has happened in this case. I'm not going to let the minister put words

into my mouth; I'll make my own speeches, thank you very much. The fact

is that up till now.... You have a commission which says: "In view

of the whole thing, we cannot conclude that the applicant's plans are

in the public interest. The commission therefore declines to approve

the application" — because they could not do anything about it. They

could do nothing about it because the Attorney-General intervened too

late and the minister did nothing. That's where it sits. When we have

that happening in the past, what can we expect to happen in the future?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't want to involve myself in this particular

debate, but the suggestion from the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) that the Attorney-General acted too late cannot stand unchallenged.

He is placing in Hansard , the record of this committee, the most irresponsible,

ill-informed claptrap that I've ever heard from him in all the time he's

been in this House.

The

legislation which has been in this province for decades, which was in

the Energy Act which he introduced and passed and which we

unfortunately followed, gives only one control, and that is to prevent

the transfer of majority shares. That's all that is does, and the

member knows that. If he doesn't then he'd better take some legal

advice. It has nothing to do with acquisition of shares at all. This

legislation which we're bringing in will have something to do with the

acquisition of shares, but the legislation that you brought in deals

only with transfer of shares. You can buy all you want, but you can't

transfer more than a majority; that requires an application to the

Utilities Commission.

The Attorney-General, on behalf of the

province of British Columbia and the people of this province,

intervened as soon as the application was made to the Utilities

Commission for that kind of approval. We were there every day, not just

one day, Mr. Member, when you went there and made your political

speech; not just one day when you had to acknowledge to the members of

the commission: "Well, after all, I guess I'm the father of this

legislation, or maybe its grandfather." You were embarrassed before the

commission, because you had to admit that it was your legislative

precedent that they were wrestling with.

I'll get you the

transcript of your cheeky, silly remarks before the commission. To

suggest that the Attorney-General didn't respond in a timely fashion is

just not what the record shows. My counsel was there every day up to

and including the final submissions, and you were not. You haven't even

taken the time to study the legislation or the report of the commission

in the light of that legislation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD:

The Attorney-General of British Columbia doesn't know what he's talk-me

about. You said you were going to intervene before April, before the

boys had acquired majority shares. Your counsel didn't even turn up on

April 2, at which time you could have stopped the transaction before it

was too late. The offer to take up the shares was then extended to

midnight of April 13-14 and what happened? You passed a silly,

ridiculous order-in-council, one of the worst that's ever come out of

the Attorney-General's ministry, on April 15. Now come on. Instead of

all these personal attacks.... I'm just pointing out that you

blundered. When the Utilities Commission called a formal meeting on

April 2 before the majority of the shares had been acquired by these

people, why didn't your counsel appear on April 2? I did. At the later

hearing it was too late; the commission has said so. There's egg all

over your face. This government knew what it was doing the whole way

through.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member always places

his own

interpretation upon circumstances, even when he's wrong. He

talked about acquisitions in his remarks a few moments ago, and he

knows this legislation does nothing with respect to the acquisition of

shares. Our legislation will.

Yes. April 2 was the day set

for the hearing, and the applicant requested an adjournment. We were

advised of it. We could be reached by telephone. You didn't know about

it, but you turned up. You filed your so-called statement on

[ Page 8812 ]

April

2. Counsel wasn't there because counsel was advised by the commission

that an application for the adjournment of the hearing had taken place

and had been granted. That's why the Attorney-General's counsel wasn't

there, but he was there from the very moment that the hearings began,

every day, until they were ended.

MR. MACDONALD: He

was there when it was too late, when they had acquired the shares. Had

the hearing and the application for the consent of the Utilities

Commission gone ahead on April 2 as scheduled, they would not have

acquired them before the commission had said one way or the other

whether it was in the public interest. You fumbled. That hearing should

have gone ahead. You got a phone call saying the hearing for April 2

was going to be cancelled. It's a formal notice, an order of the

commission and published in the newspapers, and you get a phone call

and your counsel, on your instructions — I don't hold counsel

responsible; Mr. Edwards is a good lawyer; I hold the government

responsible — doesn't even show up. You don't say: "Well, that's

strange. Are the boys reshuffling or do they want to get the shares in

their pocket before the commission has a chance to say yes or no?"

That's what happened, and you just let it happen.

The final

hearing was a charade, and the commission has said in its report that

it's powerless. On April 2, Mr. Attorney-General, you should have

acted; in fact, you should have acted before then, but on April 2 they

hadn't acquired those majority shares and you could have stopped it and

you didn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As usual, the member

is dissembling. I say again, the legislation in this province, up until

the time when we pass this bill, gives the government and the

commission no power at all with respect to the acquisition of shares,

and until an application is before that commission for approval of a

transfer of shares, which must come after application — even a

first-year law student knows that, Mr. Member — there can be no

application before the commission. So I say again, don't try to mislead

the people in this assembly or the people who read Hansard when

you talk about acquisitions, because the legislation which we had,

which followed legislation which you introduced, gave us no authority

over share acquisitions at all.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, if the hearing had gone ahead on April 2, and the

Attorney-General's counsel had taken that position and the commission

had made this finding — that it's not in the public interest — before

April 14, the public wouldn't have subscribed; there wouldn't have been

sales to the people; they would not have acquired the shares in the

face of the opposition of the commission. But they acquired them before

any decision of the commission, and when the decision of the commission

came, it was too late. Don't blame the legislation; it's through your

own deliberate fumbling of the ball.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not blaming the legislation. The member is now

shifting his position: if it had gone ahead and if all these things had

happened, the people wouldn't have acquired the shares. It just shows

how little that member, who was the Attorney-General of this province,

really knows about the law. TMA offered to buy the shares — that's a

private transaction between TMA and the people who held the shares of

Inland — and having made that offer to them, the people who held the

shares were entitled to accept that offer. They did accept that offer

in droves, and they had accepted them before April 2.

MR. MACDONALD: No.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, they had.

MR. MACDONALD: You don't know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Of course I know. The evidence is quite clear. April 13 was the final

closing date, but there was nothing in the offer which precluded

anybody from accepting the offer at any time up to April 13. So don't

try to confuse the members of this committee, Mr. Member, with respect

to those facts.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm quitting at this

point. This fellow brings up a new thing every time. I'm just making

the one final point that the majority control of the shares was

acquired by the "boys" — you know whom I'm talking about — around April

15, just before the expiry of the offer, which is the usual thing in a

takeover bid. Had you gone ahead on April 2, they would not have

acquired those shares. You let them do it and you've got a commission

that had to sit through a charade. You didn't change the legislation

until now, and you make it July 9. It's just been a case where the

Attorney-General has been a water boy for the government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, the member does not know of what he speaks. He only

discloses his ignorance with respect to corporate- takeover

transactions by his very remarks....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

That is not out of order, Mr. Chairman. We cannot, in the course of

this debate with respect to legislation which would cure the omissions

of that member when he was a minister of the Crown, have it suggested

that there was any failure on the part of either the Utilities

Commission or of this government or of the minister in the discharge of

the responsibilities which we hold with respect to the public interest

of the gas users in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: I've given the Attorney-General the last word, because he has the weaker argument.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No, the last word is not given because I have the weaker argument, Mr.

Chairman, but because finally the second member for Vancouver East has

had the good sense to recognize that what I say is correct and that the

points he makes cannot be established.

MR. MACDONALD:

He has forced me to my feet again. The merit of his argument is that he

says that because I finally ceased, I have admitted defeat. That's so

silly a thing to say that the record should be corrected, should it

not, Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) ? What a ridiculous thing!

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

[ Page 8813 ]

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Chairman, I have some questions to the minister under this section.

Dealing with the present, rather than what may or may not have gone on

in the past. I would like to point out in reply to the minister's

statement that this was some previous government's legislation, that

the legislation we're dealing with to amend is the minister's own

legislation, introduced and passed in this House in August of 1980. It

is not legislation from some previous government. If the minister and

his drafters of legislation happen to have lifted certain statutes

holus-bolus from some previous edition of the RSBC, that's their

business. The fact is, it's this minister's

section that is being

amended, not a

section from some act passed by some previous government.

However,

that is not a major point of concern here. What I am concerned about,

particularly as I represent a riding served by Inland Natural Gas, is

the statement from that Utilities Commission set up by the minister's

own legislation and appointed by that minister. The commission has

itself borne out the concerns about consumers' interests expressed by

this side of the House and by the member for Vancouver East. That is

what I'm concerned about. The commission has said that it couldn't stop

the takeover, but by golly, if it could've, it sure as heck would've.

The minister wants to assure the House that the public's interest has

been protected all along. That's what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) has been telling us as well, and that it will be protected in

future. If that is the case, why is the minister's own commission

telling the public that they don't believe the takeover was or is in

the public interest, and they would have stopped it if they could have.

Will the minister please explain that rather glaring inconsistency in

his remarks to the House'?

I would like to point out that I

personally — nor do we on this side of the House — do not particularly

object if various takeovers and shareholders want to play games on Howe

Street with common stock. That's their business. In the normal course

of events and in a normal market situation, if somebody is fooling

around with stock and selling apples and oranges, and the price of that

commodity was artificially increased due to the games being played on

Howe Street, that would be fine; some other person could come along and

undercut them, someone who hadn't been playing those games. What the

minister either doesn't understand or doesn't want to admit to himself

is that Inland Gas, being a regulated monopoly dealing in a publicly

owned petrochemical natural resource, is not in a normal situation.

People in the West Kootenay and Okanagan areas, both industry and

residential consumers, are not in a position to go to some other gas

company. They are not in a position to use some other product.

Natural

gas, as the minister well knows, is the one petrochemical resource in

B.C. that is not subject to the vagaries of the oil industry — OPEC or

the Seven Sisters. Notwithstanding the idiocies of those crazies down

in Ottawa, it's something we control here in B.C. I am very concerned,

not only for my own riding but for all of the southern interior of this

province, that we not have to pay extra money for natural gas, either

as residential consumers or as a cost of doing business for those

industries on which we depend for our livelihood throughout that very

important sector of the province.

If all is well, and if all

will always be well, as the minister would have us believe, why doesn't

the commission think so? They obviously don't. They say they would do

something if they could; they would have done something if they could

have, Why did the minister not give them the power to prevent

artificially high prices to consumers due to this takeover? I

personally am neither for nor against the takeover. I simply want to

protect the rights of consumers and industry now and in the future.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That's a perfectly logical and sensible position to take. especially as

the MLA for an area that is dependent on the service of Inland Natural

Gas. The power is within the act at this present time to ensure that

any corporate activity by any regulated utility does not adversely

impact on the commodity prices charged to the consumer. The B.C.

Utilities Commission has two major responsibilities. One is to ensure

that regulated utilities are allowed to remain healthy and not become a

major drain on the entire economy of the province: the other is that

the consumer be given the best possible service at the best possible

price. That will not change: it does not require new legislation for

that to happen. It's in the act, and it's always going to be in the act.

The commission did not say, that if different legislation had been

in place it would have stopped this takeover. However, It did raise a

number of very serious concerns about the present state of the takeover

application, the future management of Inland, and its relation to the

consumers in the future, and the possibility of diluting that wide ran

e of share ownerships so that spinoff activity into other kinds of

businesses different from regulated utilities could happen. Those are

the kinds of things the commission expressed concern about. It didn't

say, however, that if this legislation was in place it would have

stopped it. Rather, I would expect that what the commission is saying

is that they would have asked for greater proof that those conditions

would all be met. We still have that opportunity, because those are the

kinds of things which the commission sees could impact on the delivery

of service to the customers of Inland Natural Gas and the price of the

delivery of those services. We have not lost the opportunity to ensure

that the customers of Inland Natural Gas and Inland Natural Gas itself

are fully protected under the parameters of Lyood utility legislation.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not satisfied with the minister's answer.

He has not answered the basic question of why, if all is well as lie say. the

Utilities Commission said: "We recommend against approval of this takeover."

I'm quite sure that the Utilities Commission has no ethical or philosophical

objection to the present majority shareholders or ex-majority shareholders of

Inland. What they are clearly concerned about, as the minister correctly states,

is the present and future interests of consumers of natural gas under the system

operated by Inland Gas. If the minister is taking the powers through this

section

to deal with those concerns now and forever more, so be it. But obviously the

Utilities Commission is not satisfied that that is indeed what he is doing.

They are not satisfied that the new owners are going to be required, through

this takeover to look after the interests of the consumers of Inland Natural

Gas. I would like the minister to give some legal assurances rather than

his verbal assurances, as has been requested by the member for Vancouver East,

that the interests of consumers are going to be protected in some way that

will satisfy the express concerns of his own Utilities Commission.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The legal assurance that the member seeks is in this bill. and under the provisions of

[ Page 8814 ]

this

bill that will happen. I did not say that everything is fine and well,

or whatever the words the member used are. I share the same concerns as

the Utilities Commission, but I say to you that the enaction of this

bill, along with the other sections which are already in place dealing

with increases in rates of return for utilities, will allow us to

ensure that the consumers' interests will be protected.

I'll

refer you to page 26 of the report from the commission, in which they

outlined very clearly what their concerns were: change of share

ownership and impact the change might have on the operations of the

public utility. They have said that the applicant recognized this and

undertook to implement several measures to ensure that the change of

shareholders would hot affect the operations of Inland. It's obvious

that even with those assurances the commission felt somewhat

constrained to accept those assurances as they stood at that moment,

but any further change or impact on either the delivery or price of

natural gas to the Inland consumers will be under the terms of the

Utilities Commission Act and the subject of review by the Utilities

Commission. They must, by the nature of their mandate, ensure that both

of those responsibilities are upheld.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister may believe that, but the Utilities Commission doesn't.

Sections 20 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

MR. D'ARCY:

This

section does make some reference to discretionary retroactivity.

Perhaps the minister could explain to the committee whether or not he

sees this

section as being useful in terms of dealing with the subject

matter that has been covered relative to the TMK Inland Gas takeover.

notice he's consulting with the Attorney-General. Perhaps the question

could have been better put to the Attorney-General, but I'm trying to

stay in order.

Since this

section does deal with

retroactivity, can the minister make it clear to the committee how this

section could possibly be relevant to the Inland-TMA takeover that has

been discussed before the committee this afternoon?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I am advised that it's a requirement in case there is some challenge to

the order-in-council passed under the old act, regulation 147-82, and

the Utilities Commission order which followed that order-in-council. The

Attorney-General advises me that it could in fact involve a challenge

of the Utilities Commission decision.

MR. D'ARCY: Can

we take it that the minister is stating — after advice from the

Attorney-General — that in his view this

section cannot possibly be

used to require those conditions to be put in place, regarding the

takeover that the Utilities Commission was concerned about in making

their judgment of a few days ago?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I think I understand what the member is asking. The answer is no, and I

don't think it has much to do with this particular amendment. But it

does have to do with other parts of the act in which the commission,

once it's given its decision and report, cannot vary that decision

without reconvening public hearings. It would have to — I think, Mr.

Attorney-General — have some reason raised at that point, perhaps by

one of the interveners or one of the participants at that point.

Sections 34 and 35 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

66, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(Continued)

On vote 57: minister's office, $152,517.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Before noon there were some questions with respect to the youth

employment program and VDTs — the latter in particular — which I didn't

have an opportunity to answer.

With respect to the first

item, summer jobs, I was asked whether the program was cancelled. I

advised that it was never cancelled; as a matter of fact, the funding

had been increased by several hundred thousand dollars. But I think

it's important to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that we had a target of

something in excess of 8,000 jobs. To July 8, 1982, the total has been

8, 839. The private sector responded extraordinarily well and exceeded

our objectives by roughly 700. Our target was 4, 932 and as of July 8

it's 5, 635. The same applies in the areas of tourism and museums. I

might mention the only area where — according to this report — we have

not achieved our objective. In cost-secondary institutions, our

objective is 1,100 jobs; as of this date it is 1, 03 6. I expect that

slack will be picked up. When the program first came on stream, there

was some comment about its alleged cancellation. Comments were made by

universities; I've got letters from them, recognizing the value of the

program. They're using the program well and are pleased it's back on.

[ Page 8815 ]

receive a lot of interesting correspondence from a number of

associations and organizations in the province — from tourism booths,

chambers, museum societies, etc, One of the best letters came from a

company operating an information systems consulting business,

expressing delight that the program is still alive. The letter

concluded: "Over the years it has been one of the best investments I

have seen of government taxpayers' money. The program has been the only

government program in which I have been involved over the years which I

thought was profitable for everyone involved — the industry,

individuals and the taxpayers." It was encouraging; it's nice to

receive items like this.

A question was asked about the

video display terminals. I think it's unfair of the member to say that

we haven't expressed any interesting the problems "allegedly"

attributed to them. There has been a great deal of interest. We publish

the Labour Research Bulletin . There is a feature

article in the

bulletin; this particular publication put out by the occupational

environment branch of the Ministry of Labour, entitled "Working With

Video Display Terminals, " was authored by an occupational health

consultant and two doctors with the Ministry of Health....

MS. SANFORD: How many terminals have you tested?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't answer that question for you.

The

concern is: what are we going to do? A major item came out as a result

of a brief presented by the Hospital Employees Union and a federal task

force on microelectronics and employment. Apparently investigations of

similar reported cluster instances of abnormal pregnancies among VDT

operators have not identified a cause that can be related to them. We

know that the occupational environment branch has obviously been

concerned, A booklet was published and distributed. It explains in

detail all aspects of the use and practical ways in which the work life

of the operators can be improved. We are aware of it. We're passing out

as much information as we can. We try to have knowledgeable people, who

are obviously concerned, author the reports. One of the doctors in the

Ministry of Health is assistant director of the division of

occupational health, and the other is director of the radiation

protective service.

I cannot answer your question about the

case involving the Army and Navy Department Store and the human rights

branch, but I will take note of your concern and your suggestion that a

class action be made possible by amendment to the legislation.

The

member raised other questions concerning women in government. During

the past year there has been quite a significant increase. I'm advised

that 12 women now have administrative or directors roles. One, of

course, is the lady I referred to earlier who has been confirmed as the

director of human rights, Hanne Jensen. Another director is the

director of the youth employment division, Virginia Greene. One of the

most recent appointments within the last four or five months is the

director of communications, who is Marnie Mitchell. I think that covers

some of the items you had raised.

One recent item I might

mention involves the transportation of farmworkers. I'm now advised by

the director of information services of the WCB that 31 inspections

have now been conducted.

MS. SANFORD: As of last week, for the first time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On an accelerated Pattern like that, you are correct.

MS. SANFORD: After the accident.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

What inspections were conducted by the WCB prior to that time, I cannot

answer — whether there were none or one or two or whether they were

intermittent. I'm not sure. But I think the important thing is that

once it became evident these practices were being conducted. the RCMP

and the WCB were working on this.

MR. KING: Mr.

Chairman. I want to congratulate the minister's staff on their

preparation for the discussion of these estimates before the

Legislature, and I suppose I should congratulate the minister too. He's

doing his best in the fashion in which he was programmed. and I want to

give him recognition for that. The reason I know he's been programmed

is that I think he dropped a memo as he was leaving the House. and it

fell into the wrong hands. I found it humorous to look through that

memo — and I don't know where it came from; I'll send it back to the

minister if he wants it. It shows the considerable extent to which the

staff goes to prepare this minister for his annual accountability

session with the Legislature. He's playing the role pretty well. and I

think we should give him full marks.

"Minister's Briefing Book. 1982-83 Estimates:

'"Executive directors and directors are requested to

provide information for inclusion in the briefing book to be used by the minister

during debate in the House on our ministry's '82-83 estimates."

What would you ever do without them, Mr. Minister?

"You

should very briefly summarize in point form the issues and problems

concerning your programs which could or should be raised in the House.

Subjects to be considered would include: (1) matters, which were raised

in the 1981-82 estimates debate — refer to copies of Hansard

attached, (2) programs or policies introduced to revise since the

1980-81 fiscal year. particularly any changes forthcoming in 1982-83:

(3) matters which became the subject of media attention during the

current fiscal year; and (4) matters which you feel the minister may

wish to raise in the House."

And it goes on, Mr. Chairman: "To facilitate preparation of the briefing book, please

follow the format and guidelines set out on the enclosed sample — 'Finance and

Administration Submission.' "

want to congratulate the minister on how well he followed this briefing

book. It's very detailed and it's extremely sophisticated, and I know

that staff spent many hours and, undoubtedly. thousands of dollars in

resources deciding how they were going to pro-ram the minister to look

good in the debate. It s really poignant stuff. "Headings such as

'Finance' can be used if you feel that a subsection is called for. All

should be double-spaced, so the minister can read it easily." None of

this single-spacing for the minister. He may get mixed up and trip over

his tongue or something. He has no knowledge of what goes on in his

ministry. He has to be briefed: not only that. he has to be

double-spaced. This is no single-space minister. this one. Mr.

Chairman. All should be double-spaced, and 8½ by 11 inch paper

should be used. We don't want to lose the minister in his briefing

book. ''Leave at least a 1½ inch margin on the left-hand side so

[ Page 8816 ]

that

it, can be placed in a binder." Maybe the minister even wants to make

some notes. I suggest that with this minister they should leave the

margin on the right-hand side — I think it would be more appropriate.

Use Courier, ten-pitch type style. Double — underline headings. Double

underline the headings so the minister doesn't get lost. I think my

colleague has been way off base in asking this minister all these

sophisticated questions about occupational health and safety. He wasn't

briefed on those things and he has no knowledge of his own, I'm afraid.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's rather amusing — all the pages of Hansard

from last year attached. Can the minister not read? Does the minister

not know what is topical and what is important in terms of the

administration of the Ministry of Labour?

I found it

interesting that the minister came out with a ringing statement at the

start of his estimates debate, a ringing defence of the collective

bargaining process in the province of British Columbia. It sounded

really tough. He spoke so low that the Premier couldn't hear him from

where he was sitting. He's a tough minister, this one. His defence of

the collective bargaining system in the province of British Columbia

would be more reassuring if his colleague the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) had not offered this thing — this beast called a

strike contingency manual for the public service of the province of

British Columbia. Does the Minister of Labour know about that? Has he

read it? Does he agree with its philosophy? Does he agree with the

steps that are outlined in the strike contingency manual for dealing

with the government's own employees? If he does, I would think he would

want nothing less, or nothing more, for the private sector workers of

the province.

I want to remind the minister of what's in

here. I want to remind the House what's in here. There's a list of

things that should be read to the House, I think, so that everyone

remembers what's in here. This is a contingency manual telling the

senior staff of the public service what they should do if a labour

dispute develops in the public service. Aside from the wisdom of having

some contingency plan available, I think that the minister would agree

that it's not a very sensible thing to do in labour terms to wave a red

flag at the bull, as it were. If one speculates publicly that a major

dispute is going to take place, it can indeed become a self-fulfilling

prophecy. The best thing to do is not to make inflammatory statements

in public. The best thing to do is not to print inflammatory brochures

and manuals. Listen to some of the things that are said here, Mr.

Chairman. It tells the senior staff in the public service:

"For the purpose of the employer taking legal or disciplinary measures,

witnesses, who must be excluded employees, can use only the original notes that

they made based on firsthand knowledge, signed and dated at the time of the

incident or immediately thereafter, containing accurate and precise information,

either handwritten or typewritten, and preferably reduced to affidavit form

later. Where the information is not obtained firsthand, the dependent"

— I don't know what that means — "must be satisfied that the information

is reliable and must obtain the name, telephone number, address and occupation

of each person providing the information. Furthermore, photographs of events

— which should preferably be taken in colour film, but which should not be taken

in a provocative manner — documents such as telegrams, newsletters and handbills,

or things such as picket signs and posters which tend to show that the employees

were conducting, or counselled to con duct, improper acts, may help prove some

point during a legal proceeding."

This

document counsels management staff within the public service to

photograph the employees with whom they may be involved in a labour

dispute — colour film; swear out affidavits; take telephone numbers;

spy — to spy on the employees of the government of the province of

British Columbia. Your colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe), who fathered this document, apparently has such distaste and

disdain for the working people of the government itself that he

anticipates that they will be involved in all kinds of illegal conduct.

He is setting up a system that smacks of the old Pinkerton mentality

where you brought in spies to watch what workers were doing in a labour

dispute. They are not criminals; they are employees of the provincial

government. They are decent, law-abiding British Columbians, and for

your colleague the Provincial Secretary to set up this kind of

goon-squad, hit-squad mentality of stooges and eavesdroppers, while you

get up, Mr. Minister, to introduce your estimates with some pallid,

pale statement about preserving collective bargaining in the province

of British Columbia.... What kind of a focal point are you? Does

anyone have any confidence in your sincerity regarding preserving

collective bargaining when you have never issued a statement

repudiating this abominable document?

Let me read some more

of what it says, what it anticipates, in terms of the illegal conduct

that the employees of the government of the province of British

Columbia may indulge in. It's here somewhere. You know, they even

attach copies of the Criminal Code, but they list the offences that can

be anticipated in appendix C of the strike manual. This is B.C.

government policy, my friends. Here are the illegal acts, the sections

of the Criminal Code, which this government anticipates their own

employees to indulge in: unlawful assembly, riot, punishment of a

rioter —

section 66 of the Criminal Code;

section 67, punishment for

unlawful assembly;

section 85, possession of weapon or intimidation.

Who is going to possess the weapon — the nurses? Is it going to be some

of the junior staff of the Ministry of Labour? Who's it going to be? Is

it going to be some of your mediation officers, who have spent a

lifetime trying to develop industrial peace and harmony in this

province? They are the people affected by this document.

Section

87, carrying a concealed weapon;

section 116, disobeying a court order;

section 118, offences relating to public or peace officer.... Do

this minister and his colleague really believe that the public servants

in the province of British Columbia are so radical and contemptuous of

the law that they are going to attack peace officers in the event of a

labour dispute? Is that what the minister and his colleague think?

Section

171, causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc....

What kind of a government is this? Do you really suspect that your

employees, much less the private sector employees, those honest,

decent, hard-working people of the province, are going to indulge in

indecent exhibition if a dispute between their employer and their union

ensues? What kind of a sick mentality is this? Where has the Minister

of Labour been in failing to repudiate this document? It's not enough

for him to get up and say: "Well, there are some pressures, but I'm

going to defend the integrity of

[ Page 8817 ]

the collective bargaining system." The government has no integrity left when they issue this kind of document.

There's

more. They list

section 245, common assault;

section 246, assault with

intent;

section 381, intimidation; and

section 387, mischief. This is

what this government is anticipating. The title on it is "Strike

Contingency Manual, Government Employee Relations Bureau,

Confidential." I guess it was confidential, but it came to light and so

it should come to light, because this kind of thinking, utterance and

writing not only poisons the climate of industrial relations in this

province; it poisons any credibility or any respect that right-minded

people had in viewing the conduct of their government; that's what it

does. I want to hear the Minister of Labour stand in this House and

tell the members of this Legislature whether or not he endorses this

document that was put out under the authority of his colleague the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

The Minister of

Labour, a lawyer by trade, is receiving some legal advice from the

Attorney-General at the moment. It's not legal advice he needs, Mr.

Attorney-General; it's some moral advice. He needs some advice on

morality and integrity, because if he is to be respected as a Minister

of Labour, he would have to repudiate this kind of trash in the

strongest possible terms, I challenge him to do that now. I challenge

him to assure the House that this kind of document will be rescinded,

and that he will personally repudiate his colleague the Provincial

Secretary for allowing this to be uttered under the authority of his

ministry.

I want the Minister of Labour's assurance that he

totally dissociates himself from the kind of garbage contained in the

government's official strike contingency manual. If he is prepared to

do that, I would like to get into some rational discussion about the

administration of the Ministry of Labour. But if we have a Minister of

Labour who, through his silence, even tacitly endorses this kind of

rubbish, then I say it is totally meaningless to debate even any of the

general administrative responsibilities that fall under the Ministry of

Labour during his tenure. I'm going to take my seat. I ask the Minister

of Labour to give a clear, forceful and unequivocal statement to this

House regarding his position on the garbage printed in this manual.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 57 pass? On vote 57, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING:

It's absolutely unbelievable that the Minister of Labour sits silently,

mute, in his chair and ignores the kind of poison that's contained in

this manual. He fails to seek the opportunity to totally dissociate

himself from that kind of poison and fails to admonish his colleague

the Provincial Secretary for allowing it to be issued. Under those

circumstances, anything that this Minister of Labour does or says in

the realm of industrial relations in the province of British Columbia

is suspect. I say that regretfully.

When the Minister of

Labour suggested that there were pressures on the collective bargaining

system, was he referring to the strike manual put out by the Government

Employee Relations Bureau? Was he referring to the right-to-work

resolutions that were submitted at he Social Credit annual convention?

Was he referring to any of those things? I would like to hear an answer

from the minister in that respect. Where is the pressure against the

integrity of the collective bargaining system in the province coming

from?

Mr. Chairman, I have a whole variety of other matters

I intended to raise, but quite frankly, I'm so appalled by the

minister's silence that I think it's futile to go into a debate about

lost man-days in the province. I think it's futile to go into any

intelligent debate about different initiatives that might be taken to

improve the quality of our industrial relations in the province of

British Columbia. It's futile to talk about those things, because this

Government and this minister obviously hold the whole system in nothing

but contempt. When they view their own employees as capable of breaches

of the law in the fashion outlined in this manual, I say there is no

hope for the system under this government and certainly none under a

minister who is so weak-kneed that he fails to dissociate himself from

that kind of rot.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is just such speeches that we have just heard that sow the mines in the labour minefield in British Columbia.

have the finest civil service in Canada, we know that — we've stated that

on the floor of this House many times — and it is not a matter that

should be up for debate. To suggest that anybody on this side of the

House or this party opposes labour or the civil service is a mere

misrepresentation of the facts and a heinous thing to say. It is not

true; it is patently wrong, totally wrong, very irregular -— and there

are stronger words I could use, but I shall not use them. To bring

words like this into this House and to temper the words and place them

in the labour minefield. such as goon-squad — to quote his own words —

hit-squad, riot, unlawful assembly, possession of weapons, carrying

concealed weapons.... I know it is one of the tricks of the

opposition to laugh when a member is speaking. We notice no one laughs

at him; we listen with some respect and silence.

But we are

indeed saddened to hear a man who was a former Minister of Labour go

about sowing minefields to trip up the civil service of this province.

Whatever this document is he claims to read from, I have never seen it,

nor do I particularly want to see it. It is not the issue before this

House. The issues before this House are the estimates of the Minister

of Labour, and those are the issues we must consider at this time.

It's

regrettable that the attitude created by this opposition throughout the

years has created confrontations with labour which are totally

unnecessary. That is what has created the confrontation. We do not need

this hot confrontation climate in British Columbia. This Government has

tried its best to defuse it and has done so. There has not been a

longer period of labour peace for many a decade in this province.

Inflammatory speeches of this kind are nothing more than a sowing of

mines. a distressful minefield to trip up not this government but the

public, to say that we are out for....

Let me tell you

this, Mr. Chairman, and mark it well. In every large group of employees

there are always some who go overboard and create the misdemeanours,

and these people should be identified, because they're the ones who

damage the labour climate in British Columbia, who reflect badly on our

industrial strength and who prevent companies coming in here that would

love to come in here but are afraid of the hot, unreasonable climate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one!

[ Page 8818 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Name them? The numbers are legend, and there are many. But I'm not

here.... We're debating the estimates of the Minister of Labour.

is just this kind of attitude, this kind of confrontation, this kind of

loose statement and this kind of exaggeration that inflames the public,

that turns these people on who create the damage that is being done. We

had just such a situation, Mr. Chairman, not many years ago in 1971,

when in New Westminster at a convention, Mr. Cyril Shelford, a previous

Minister of Labour, was hit over the back with a two-by-four, and to

this day he still suffers from that injury. Now what caused that'? That

was because of the confrontation exercise created by this government.

We do not blame the federation of labour that was involved; not at all.

I blame just one individual, Mr. Chairman, who did not understand, was

inflamed, was tipped over the edge because of statements such as we

heard from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). That's the

kind of thing that tips people on the edge over the edge.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

laughs nervously; he knows I'm right. Others laugh nervously; they know

I'm right. The climate in British Columbia must be cooled down. We must

have labour peace. We are with our employees; we are with the civil

service. But I do believe, regardless of this document, that when bad

things happen, illegal acts happen, these people should be identified,

and they must be identified.

It was not too long ago that

there was serious labour disruption in the B.C. Telephone Co., when

sabotage of the worst kind was being done by someone; we do not know

who did it. But nervous laughs continue. Mr. Chairman, it's not a

laughing matter; it's a serious matter. Would it not have been better

for the 99.99 percent of British Columbians who want labour peace to

know who are the perpetrators of this trouble? I say that the public is

being inflamed by such speeches. They do not know the facts. They are

not for peace; they're for confrontation. Why can't they stand up in

their places and assist the Minister of Labour'? This parliament is not

for the NDP, nor for Social Credit; this is a parliament of the people

of British Columbia. We should be here to assist the Minister of Labour

get better legislation. I'm ashamed to be in this House to see this

confrontation spectacle. There have been inflammatory speeches like

this throughout the history of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The nervous laughs continue; they continue because they know no better — hysterical giggling.

The

fact is that we have the finest labour force in Canada, except for one

or two bad apples. Those people should be identified — that's our

problem. I ask the members of the opposition to use judgment and care

in what they are saying and to understand that we have one purpose

here. We should be working together to improve this province — not to

create confrontation or sow minefields, but to get together for the

benefit of our people and our civil servants. Canada is in difficult

times. British Columbia is in difficult times also, but not as bad as

the rest of Canada. But it is very difficult. These are times for

cohesion, not separation. It's a time to get together in a common

cause, not to be destructive. The speech by the member for

Shuswap-Revel stoke was destructive and inconsiderate, and it had no

purpose except to inflame.

MR. KING: I want to assure

the member for Dewdney that I didn't hit Cyril Shelford on the shoulder

with the club, nor do I think I incited that to occur, because I wasn't

even here then.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I never said you did.

MR. KING:

As a matter of fact, Cyril came to my office seeking compensation

coverage on the shoulder. Certainly it was a very unfortunate incident.

think the member misses the point. I'm going to try to make it clear

for him. If anyone breaches the law, if anyone acts like a hooligan, of

course he should be dealt with under the law; and we have a police

force to do that. What I was reading from is your government's strike

contingency manual, Mr. Member. They're not my words. I disagree with

them. If you want a copy, I'll give it to you. You should know it,

because you are part of that government. Yes, you're right: it's

inflammatory; it's inconsiderate. The point about people being

identified; we have a criminal justice system to identify and prosecute

those who violate the law. We should not be asking the public service,

as this strike manual does, to play Pinkerton, to play informer on

their fellow workers. That's precisely what it does. We should not be

anticipating breaches of the Criminal Code by members of the public

service, and that is clearly what this strike manual does. If the

member cannot understand that it's the government's document, the

government's language and the government's philosophy, then I guess

there's nothing I or anyone else can do to assist him. Yes, it's

inflammatory; yes, it's ill-advised. It is issued under the authority

of the government that you belong to, Mr. Member. That's what's so sad

about it.

We shall never be able to gain the kind of

cooperative relationship between workers in this province and

management in this province unless there is, first of all, respect for

the existence of both. This particular document displays a complete

disrespect for the legal functions of trade unions. If the Minister of

Labour and the government are sincere about trying to bring in

initiatives to bring labour and management together to create a better

and more cooperative climate, one in which there is mutual recognition

that they have a joint stake in improving the strength of our economy,

and our productivity to ensure that our product is competitive in world

markets, and that there is security in employment.... They are all

admirable things that we should be doing. The point is: how can we

possibly gain the confidence of labour and management, the parties at

the bargaining table, when the government of this province issues such

an objectionable document, which finds working people, their own

employees, guilty of the most — I don't know how to describe it —

atrocious kind of behaviour? If you don't trust them, if you think

they're capable of attacking with weapons, and capable of all of the

potential crimes outlined in this strike manual, how then can you sit

down and have a cooperative dialogue? It's absolutely absurd and the

most poisonous kind of document I have ever read, not only in British

Columbia but in any jurisdiction in Canada.

If the Minister

of Labour would only get on his feet and say, "Look, I agree with you;

I think the policy manual is wrong and ill-advised, and I dissociate

myself from it; I, as

[ Page 8819 ]

the

Minister of Labour in the province of British Columbia, and my

colleague the Provincial Secretary, repudiate this document, " then we

might have a basis for some logical and respectful discussion. But so

long as this remains as the official policy of the government of the

province of British Columbia, then I regretfully have to say that I

have absolutely no respect for the government or for the office of a

Minister of Labour who would tolerate this kind of poison abroad in the

name of the government of British Columbia. That's the shameful reality

of the situation.

It's not good enough for the member for

Dewdney to say we should be cooperating. That would be nice, and it is

a fact that on more than one occasion I have collaborated with the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he was Minister of Labour,

and with the current Minister of Labour, and offered my views on how we

might improve the industrial relations climate in the province. We've

had discussions about particular labour disputes and we've had them in

confidence; they've never been used politically. But against the

background of this kind of poison, I have to say that I personally have

lost respect for that office unless that office completely dissociates

themselves from the contents of this poisonous document.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I suppose that in 1981 there was really a fair amount of exaggeration.

I suspect that concerns, comments and expressions by a number of people

occurred. With respect to that particular document, I gather it was

prepared by GERB — to the best of my knowledge. I understand that they

had had some dialogue with others involved who have identical manuals;

I'm not sure. I think it would be fair to say that I had communicated

my views with respect to that particular document. The Ministry of

Labour was not involved in its preparation and was certainly not

consulted. I will say that GERB, acting as an employer representative,

felt that it was incumbent upon itself to prepare this particular

manual to assist them in the event of any problems. Why? I suppose any

employer organization might prepare something like this. I think it

probably would be advisable that when guidelines and things like this

are prepared, there would be some discussion with the ministry, because

the fact of the matter is, I gather, that the Provincial Secretary's

ministry, through GERB.... And it's part of government, although

GERB operates as a bargaining agent on behalf of government itself.

really would have to say that, going back, there seemed to be a number

of items that occurred in 1981 that involved a fair degree of

exaggeration on both sides.

MR. KING: Oh, Jack, you're so weak it's pathetic.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

My friend, the fact of the matter is, this particular issue came up

when this brief was given by GERB to the GEU, and I'll tell you it was

raised at the time. I remember listening to the debate. The Provincial

Secretary answered it; it was handled then. I tell you that we were not

involved in the preparation. As the Minister of Labour, I can assure

you of what happens if there is a particular dispute. Raising this item

right now reminds me of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

trying to justify a member's recent statement: coming back in, bringing

it all out, rehashing it on TV. There was a debate at the time. It was

finished. These people are in negotiations now. Why raise something

like this? You made your point some time ago, Mr. Member.

When they're busy negotiating, what's the point of raising this sort of material? Absolutely none.

will only say that in the Ministry of Labour, in the event of some

problems which may or may not rise.... Hopefully they won't arise.

But if they do, there has to be some degree of impartiality and

neutrality in this particular office. Obviously this ministry is not

involved in the thing.

You raised one other matter, Mr.

Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, involving something about the integrity

of bargains and of institutions, as I recall. You've been involved in

labour matters a lot longer than I have, but in 1981, I remember court

orders that weren't obeyed. I remember refusals to appear before the

board because of some particular problems involving another dispute.

Come on, we all remember that. I remember the extensive use of

secondary picketing. which is a violation of the provisions of the code.

I remember calls for a general strike, and things like that. My point

is that there is a Labour Code in British Columbia, with which you're

very familiar, and there are rules and regulations. There's an

institution created to carry out those particular rules and

regulations, and I don't want to see any deviation from that — not by

those who administer it, those who should be before it. those who

should obey the orders. That's really what I , was referring to.

MR. COCKE:

I would expect the Provincial Secretary to have taken a position in

defence of the document produced by GERB, but for the arbiter of labour

management relations in this province not to dissociate himself

entirely from it is, to me, absurd. Of all the documents to evoke anger

and create havoc in labour management relations, that's got to be one

of the best I've ever seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or worst.

MR. COCKE: Or the worst, as my colleague says. Best if they want to do that: worst if they don't.

any event. I believe the Minister of Labour should stand up and

dissociate himself from that. Let the Provincial Secretary go ahead,

let his department fiddle like that, but there's no way the Minister of

Labour should be associated in any way, shape or form with such a piece

of red, inflammatory material.

MR. KING: I have two final points.

don't know what the minister was trying to infer when he talked about

1981 and people defying board orders. I hope he wasn't inferring that I

in any way counselled people to defy board orders, because nothing

could be further from the truth. I don't know what he's referring to,

or what the relevance is of the fact that there was some defiance of

the law. That may occur from time to time and the law is designed to

deal with transgressions; whether it be the administrative law of the

Labour Relations Board or an order subsequently filed with the courts,

that's on their heads. As far as I am concerned, the parties to

industrial relations should indeed obey the law, because that's they

only, way the system can have integrity.

The other point the

minister made is that he has to be an impartial arbiter. That's very

true, and I accept that. But how can you be an impartial arbiter when

your own government has displayed the most scandalous contempt for one

of the parties to the system, one of the parties within the framework

of law which you administer? How can you persuade them

[ Page 8820 ]

that

here is a minister who is indeed impartial and has equal respect for

the rights of both sides, when that minister is a party to a brochure

that has characterized working people as possible criminals on all of

the counts outlined in that document — capable of concealing weapons, of

indecent displays — and counselled senior staff to take photographs of

them, to phone, to take notes, to act as informers? I would think that

if the government had any respect for their employees, and if the

government had an intelligent approach to industrial relations, it

would deem working people generally, and certainly public employees in

particular, to be law-abiding citizens, and treat any breach of the law

which may occur through the normal criminal justice system, and not set

up a new level of informers within the public service, and not

anticipate and proclaim that the employees of this government are

capable of all the heinous crimes outlined in that detestable document.

That's the issue. If the Minister of Labour is going to sit weakly in

his place and fail to repudiate that kind of poisonous approach to

industrial relations, then I would have to say, if I were a trade union

representative coming before that minister: "If he has already

categorized us as potential criminals, if he has already written us off

as capable of all of these terrible misdeeds, how can he have any

respect or sympathy for my case?" Accordingly, how can he be the

impartial arbiter that he pretends to be? That's the issue here.

the minister is so weak and lacking in commitment to the structure of

law, which he as a minister of the Crown is authorized and duty-bound

to preside over, that he will not repudiate and dissociate himself from

that document, then I say that this is the weakest, most scandalous

performance by any minister of the Crown I have ever seen in the

history of this province. Shame on you!

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister wants to stand up now and refute

this particular document. If so, I would be quite willing to relinquish

my place.

MS. SANFORD: Well, does he support it?

MS. BROWN: Would the minister stand up and say whether he supports this document?

just want to associate myself, Mr. Chairman, with the statements made

by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) as they apply to this document — also, the

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who totally disagreed with the

contents of the document. The only mistake he made was in thinking that

the document was written by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. I'm

really quite surprised that the minister has not used this opportunity

to get it on record that he does not tolerate the kinds of things

outlined in this document.

I want to speak to the minister

today about the shameful and disgraceful way in which domestic workers

are still being treated by this government. I can't believe that after

all these years, and after the number of times we've raised these

issues on behalf of the domestic workers in estimates, question period,

and through private members' bills, and so on, that their situation has

not improved. There was a very slight improvement in terms of amending

some of the regulations. But for all intents and purposes the domestic

workers of this province still are virtual slaves, quite frankly, and

this with the endorsement and support of this particular government.

Apparently there are something in the neighbourhood of 3,000 privately

employed nanny-housekeepers, predominantly in their

mid-twenties, in British Columbia. In addition, there are a number of

people working for the provincial government, or for organizations that

contract work for the provincial government, who come under the same

label of domestic workers. Can I quote from the brief which they

presented to the minister in 1980: "Domestic workers are employed in a

variety of different situations. Some work in private households, some

work through large employment agencies, and others are employed

directly or indirectly by the government." Despite that, Mr. Chairman,

this is a situation which they still work under.

According

to legislation, they are excluded from

section 3 of the Employment

Standards Act, That's the

section that has to do with hours of work and

overtime; in other words, they are supposed to work eight hours a day.

Whether they work 14, 15, 17 or 18 hours a day, their wage is still

based on an eight-hour day at the minimum wage. There is no inspection,

no supervision, no protection whatsoever for these workers, most of

whom are women — I think almost all of them are women. There is no

protection in terms of days off. They are supposed to have two days

off, but there is no law or regulation that says they must be

consecutive. Because they have so little protection, their exploitation

continues unabated.

As though that were not bad enough, Mr.

Chairman, a number of these women are immigrant women from various

parts of the world, and part of the agreement with the Department of

Immigration is that they have to live in their place of employment.

Despite that, there are no standards covering their living and working

conditions, and no inspection. Nobody says that the domestic worker is

entitled to a bed of her own, to a room of her own, even to privacy; no

standards have been laid down. No one goes to inspect the living and

working conditions under which she has to survive. As though that were

not bad enough, apparently a worker at the employment standards branch

has informed a member of the domestic workers' union that the branch is

seriously considering increasing the amount of money which can be

deducted from the domestic worker's wage to cover room and board.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding.

MS. BROWN:

Oh, no. You see, at present the employer is allowed to deduct somewhere

between $175 and $200 a month from a salary of $625 a month, which is

the average wage a domestic earns. This worker at the employment

standards branch says the branch is thinking of increasing that to $300

a month — $300 a month to be deducted for room and board when, as the

domestics often tell you, they are lucky if they get a hide-a-bed

chesterfield in the rumpus room as their place of accommodation. There

are no standards. They have to live in their place of employment or

Immigration will deport them back to their place of origin. They have

no choice. There is no inspection to ensure that these women have

decent living and working conditions, but the employment standards

branch is setting arbitrary figures as to what can be deducted from

their already paltry income.

As though that were not bad

enough, everyone knows that this province has no legislation dealing

with sexual harassment. A number of these women run