1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3677 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Fraser.

Introduction and first reading –– 3677

Family and Child Service Act (Bill 45). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading –– 3677

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980 (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3677

Motion 19.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3677

Mr. Barrett –– 3677

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates,

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 134: minister's office 3677

Mr. Lockstead, Mr. Davis, Ms. Brown, Mr. Segarty, Mr. Barber, Mr. Lea

Division on vote 134 –– 3688

Votes 135 to 140 inclusive approved –– 3689

Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act (Bill 38). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Williams)

section 25 –– 3689

Mr. Levi

On the amendment to

section 25 –– 3689

Mr. Barber, Hon. Mr. Gardom

section 25 as amended –– 3690

Mr. Barber, Mr. Levi

section 26 –– 3691

Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Levi

Report and third reading –– 3692

Business Licence Act (Bill 42). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 I –– 3692

Mr. Mitchell

Report and third reading –– 3693

Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 41). Committee Stage.

section 9 –– 3693

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Report and third reading –– 3693

Appendix –– 3693

FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Family and Child Service Act.

Bill

45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980.

Bill

47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move Motion 19 standing on my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, this motion has the purpose of extending the

congratulations and best wishes of this House and the people of British

Columbia to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, on the

occasion of her birthday this coming Monday.

I might just

make a few brief comments relative to the motion. Her Majesty and the

late King George VI visited Vancouver and Victoria on May 29, 1939,

during an extensive tour of Canada and the United States of America at

that time. Her Majesty also visited Victoria on March 19, 1966. when

she visited the Legislative Assembly and laid the cornerstone of the

Provincial Museum and the Provincial Archives building. Her Majesty's

last visit to British Columbia was a one-day stay in Vancouver on May

4, 1966. Those are the occasions when, in recent times, the Queen

Mother was here in British Columbia. I might say that His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor and the Hon. Premier have sent congratulatory

letters on this happy occasion.

I move the motion which extends the congratulations and best wishes for continued

good health and many happy returns to Queen Elizabeth.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my few brief comments to the motion, which I

am sure will receive unanimous support in this House. It was a reminder

to me when the minister spoke of the Queen Mother's visit — and I think

to the minister's running mate as well; both were in the House in 1966

— of that wonderful day when the Queen Mother visited Victoria and the

Legislature. I recall one of those wonderful memories of an informal

occasion when the desks were moved and there was a friendly atmosphere

in this chamber — a matter of note in itself. The Hon. W.A.C. Bennett

was the Premier at the time. We spent a delightful afternoon when all

the members had a reception with the Queen Mother here in the chamber

itself, which was a magnificent use of her chamber.

It is a

wonderful occasion to be celebrating the continuity given by the Queen

Mother. It is a reminder of the tremendous service that both gave

during World War II, which was a universal struggle against

dictatorship and fascism brought to a successful conclusion, saving our

Commonwealth at the same time. She is a living memory of why this

Commonwealth succeeds. Why those of us who are at the lower political

level are allowed to have our differences, under the total commitment

of all of us who participate to loyalty and the Commonwealth. I would

like to add those few words in respect to her and the role she plays in

the Commonwealth.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY

AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 134: minister's office, $187,509.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I do have a couple of questions for the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development dealing with Ocean Falls. I'm sure the minister

knew I was going to raise this topic during the debate of his

estimates. Everyone in this House is aware that Ocean Falls was shut

down completely some two months or so ago, and in spite of what has

been said on the other side of the House, the fact is that Ocean Falls

should not have been shut down. I'll just give you a couple of quick

reasons before I ask my questions.

Mr. Chairman. In a

six-year period the Ocean Falls Corporation achieved export sales in

excess of $150 million — 150 million off-shore dollars that came to

Canada and British Columbia that would not have arrived here and would

not have been in your budget, Mr. Chairman. Had Ocean Falls been left

open, in operation.... During the same period more than $55 million

were paid in wages, which in turn generated more than $13 million in

income tax revenues. Another $55 million were added to the economy

through the purchase of logs, pulp and fuel. Interest paid on loans

from the provincial government totalled $2.7 million. Capital taxes,

stumpage and water rentals returned approximately $1

[ Page 3678 ]

million

to the province. An estimated $2.6 million were paid in provincial

sales tax during the same period and during this period the corporation

spent approximately $15 million on equipment upgrading and improvements.

The

point I'm making here, Mr. Chairman, is that in spite of the fact that

the Ocean Falls Corporation was showing a loss over the last couple of

years under Social Credit management, it still should not have been

closed down, displacing some 423 employees in the loss of jobs to the

economy in this province. I quote the words of the chairman of the

corporation, who said as recently as April of this year: "Recent

studies have shown that Ocean Falls can continue to provide one of the

best people service centres on the mid coast. Facilities now in place

for medical care, schooling, housing, provisioning and transit service

could not be readily duplicated." So there are a lot of good reasons.

The

ill-informed second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) said in

this House the day before yesterday that the NDP purchased Ocean Falls

knowing that the corporation had to be modernized and upgraded, and

they did nothing. The fact is that our government commissioned a very

expensive study by the world-leading authority on pulp and paper

manufacturing. We hired the consultants of Simons, H.A. Ltd. The report

they produced was presented to the present government in January 1976.

That report indicated, of course, that the plant did need upgrading and

modernizing, etc. But what happened? Nothing. This present government,

although they'd been in power for approximately five years, did not

implement one single recommendation of that report. Nothing was done

and the plant, of course, was bound to lose money over that period of

time. Bottom line government!

My questions to the minister

are simply these — and I hope you're keeping track, Mr. Minister. Is

the minister aware of the facts I've just outlined? If so, did he do

any cost-benefit analysis with these figures in terms of the future of

Ocean Falls? With regard to the future of Ocean Falls, what is the

progress, or has there been any?

Mr. Williston said that the flitch and chip mill would absorb some of the unemployed

workers. I know very well that the minister is going to get up and say: "All

but 26 of the displaced workers of Ocean Falls have found other job opportunities."

That is not quite correct, because I checked those figures out again yesterday.

Be that as it may, those are the figures that we'll accept on this side

of the House. I don't want to get in a long hassle about that.

would like to know if any timber has been allocated for the proposed

so-called flitch and chip mill, how much timber has been allocated,

where that timber is located and how many people will be employed in

that mill. How many months behind

schedule are you on that proposal?

You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that the announcement from the government

said that as of August 1 this year, which is today, that proposed

flitch and chip mill would be in operation. We know very well that that

mill is not in operation today, so how many months behind

schedule are

you? Mr. Williston at one point said probably six months. It looks like

you're at least a year behind schedule, if you proceed with the

proposal at all. Will any people still living in Ocean Falls be

employed in that proposed mill? What is the reason for the delay'?

asked the minister a series of questions in question period which he

took as notice, didn't answer or thought were out of order. But I know

the questions are in order. This is regarding breach of contract with

the Los Angeles Times , and a

possible lawsuit. I'd like to know from the minister how many tonnes of

newsprint were contracted in the past by Ocean Falls to supply the Los Angeles Times .

How many tonnes are Ocean Falls liable for in the future? In other

words, I'd like to know the cost of that settlement. Where are they now

in negotiations with the Los Angeles Times ,

in terms of a possible breach-of-contract suit? Are you negotiating at

all? Until what date is the corporation liable? When I use the term

"corporation," I'm really saying "the government," because the

government is going to have to pick up the tab, whether this matter is

settled in or out of court. In the final analysis, the government is

going to have to pick up the tab. I suggest that that tab is going to

be a minimum of about $22 million. I'd like the minister's answer to

that question. Further, I'd like to know how many other customers'

orders were not filled by the Ocean Falls Corporation. How many other

customers were there? Does the possibility of breach-of-contract suits

against the corporation exist with these customers? Have there been

negotiations with these other customers? What is happening in that area?

With those few brief questions, I look forward to the minister's answers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Before I attempt to answer the hon. member's questions, I would like to

say that I have with me on the floor of the House this morning: Mr. Mac

Norris, president and chief executive officer of British Columbia

Railway — in case there are questions on the British Columbia Railway;

Newell Morrison, chairman of British Columbia Development Corporation;

and Dick Butler from the department.

I can certainly

appreciate the member's concern about Ocean Falls, because Ocean Falls

is in his riding. The closing down of Ocean Falls was not an easy

decision for the government. Had it been an easy decision, we probably

would have made it two or three years ago. When we inherited Ocean

Falls we looked at all the possible angles of how to keep it going.

Maybe the member and I and this side of the House differ

philosophically a little bit on this question. Probably his government

would have invested in a new pulpmill in Ocean Falls; that's where we

differ.

We endeavoured to interest the private sector in

Ocean Falls. It was really because of lack of timber in the area that

we were unable to interest a kraft mill in coming there. I don't really

wish to place the blame on anybody for the lack of timber supply. I

don't think it would do this House any good to look backward and say

that when the previous administration purchased Ocean Falls there was

no timber allocation left for Ocean Falls. I don't think that would do

any good for the Legislature or the people of Ocean Falls.

The

main reason for closing down Ocean Falls was that the mill would have

had to be rebuilt. To build a TMP mill in there would require a power

line that would have to go down the coast. As you know, today power

lines are increasingly expensive to build. So the decision was made to

close it down. I don't want to brag, but I think that Mr. Williston has

done an excellent job in looking after the people who work there and in

assisting the businesses in the area and all the people who live there

through a quiet and orderly transition period. But the fact was that

the mill was just completely worn out.

What we're trying now

is a new experiment. It has taken us a little longer than anticipated

to put the wood supply together, but I'm sure that the people in the

Ministry of

[ Page 3679 ]

Forests

have been working conscientiously and hard to obtain sufficient timber

to put this new project together. I don't have to explain to the House

or to the member what we're trying to do. I just want to say that it

looks very encouraging. If it is successful, indeed it could change the

logging and lumber industries on the coast.

My understanding

with regard to the timber allocation is that final plans for the

alteration of the former pulpmill woodroom could not be made until

there was a firm indication of the timber which would be processed

through the plant. Of course, you can't build a woodroom until you know

exactly the size and shape of the timber you're going to put through

there. The timber sale has been defined and will be spread over 11

relatively small logging sites, most of which will be able to

accommodate one contract logger. These will be cruised with the

extraction roads and dumps being engineered and located starting August

1, 1980. Loggers for nine of the shows, which could involve up to 200

workers, are expected to live in and communicate from Ocean Falls. The

first road work will start before the end of the year. The actual

timber sale document could be finalized by mid-September. So, indeed,

Mr. Member, we certainly are making progress.

Now, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead),

I'd like to address the issue of a possible lawsuit. As the member well

knows, I'm not a lawyer. But I think that there have been many cases in

the past where contracts for pulp have not been lived up to, either

because of inability to supply or, indeed, inability of the purchaser

to take the quantity contracted for. It's my understanding that

historically there have been no lawsuits in this regard.

caution the member on quoting dollars in this particular case, because

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, being as kind to the member as I

possibly can, that his numbers are not accurate. I don't want to

predict the outcome of any possible lawsuit or whether there will even

be a lawsuit. I can appreciate the hon. member's attitude in this. It

may be good politics to play with this particular legality, but I would

caution the member about saying too much about something that....

Let

me put it this way: I respect the hon. member for Mackenzie very much

as an individual, and I would not want to see him lose his credibility.

Although, as I say, it may sound like good politics at the time to take

the government and sort of rub their nose in it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Your credibility is at stake, not mine.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that at the present time it might appear

to be good politics, but I have too much respect for the hon. member

for Mackenzie to allow him to indulge in this. I would not want to have

to stand in this Legislature next year and say: "I told you so." I

could have the opportunity this morning to do that with regard to the

number of people he said were going to be unemployed and all the

problems. But I appreciate the hon. member as an individual, and I

would never say to him: "I told you so." I wouldn't want to be given

the opportunity to say that next year in my debates when it comes to

talking about the lawsuit.

MR. DAVIS: I'll be brief,

Mr. Chairman. We've heard a great deal in this House — and outside —

about northeast coal. We've read all sorts of reports about costs and

even subsidies. Most of it has been speculation; however, there are

sonic figures out in the public arena which I know must be taken

seriously. Others are highly speculative, and it's the speculative ones

I would like to discuss with the hon. minister today.

We are

told by various sources that the offering price of northeast coal on

board ship at Ridley Island near Prince Rupert in the mid-1980s is $85

a tonne. The Japanese may be prepared to pay as much as $75 a tonne for

this good-grade metallurgical coal — or at least that's the way the

press reports the prices. The gap or shortfall between the price which

the Canadian coal industry is demanding and the figure which our

foreign buyers are prepared to pay, both in the mid-1980s, is $10. The

gap appears to be $10. Would the hon. minister confirm these figures,

or correct them if they need correcting? Again I'm stressing the

word-1980s; I'm also talking about prices and not costs. Costs are

something else again.

To go on. Mr. Chairman, I gather from

what the hon. minister said yesterday, the transportation component of

the offering price — and by that I mean the rail and dock offloading

component — is $20 a tonne. In arriving at the $85 a tonne offering

price. $20 was included for transportation, in other words. Of this $20

figure, $4 was the so-called surcharge, an amount earmarked to help pay

for the capital costs of the new rail line from Anzac on B.C. Rail to

Tumbler Ridge in the coal mines east of the Rockies themselves.

I can digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I might say that $4 of the

overall $20 of transportation charges is a surcharge amount, air amount

which will be set aside to help pay for the new rail line. The

remaining $16 would be divided up in roughly equal proportions, one

proportion going to B.C. Rail. one to CNR and one for clock-handling

charges in the Prince Rupert area. I would appreciate comments from the

hon. minister about the $20 figure, and perhaps its breakdown. It is

the $4 surcharge which I am really interested in. Is it really supposed

to cover the capital charges associated with the construction of the

new fine from Anzac to Tumbler Ridge and on to the mines themselves?

Yesterday

the minister told us that the estimated capital cost of the rail line,

including construction of its right-of-way, bridges and tunnels, would

be on the order of $315 million. That's in 1979 dollars. By the time

the line is completed in the mid-1980s, allowing for inflation, the

figure may be 25 percent higher. Does it include interest during

construction? This financial provision, if it is not included, would

add perhaps another 20 or 30 percent to the total.

I come up with a capital cost in 1985 dollars of between $400 million and

$500 million. This is the figure, of course, which we must take into account

when striking rates. It is the figure which we must use in calculating the

ongoing payments which will have to be made to cover the capital cost of this

new line. If I were the CNR or CPR, looking at an investment of this kind, I

would say that the annual provision that I would have to make for the servicing

of this roughly $450 million investment would be on the order of 20 percent

a year. It would be about $90 million a year. Of this 20 percent, incidentally,

13 percent would be for interest, 5 percent would be set aside each year to

pay off the original amount of the debt and 2 percent would be the usual amount

allowed for possible overruns. errors in estimating and so on.

We are looking at an annual cost of capital on the new line

[ Page 3680 ]

$90 million a year. If ten million tonnes of coal are moving over the

line, this is $9 a tonne. If it were five million tonnes a year, it

would be $18 a tonne. If the movement was on the order of 7.5 million

tonnes a year — the figure mentioned yesterday by the minister — the

cost of this capital investment in the new rail line facilities would

be $13 a tonne. Incidentally, $13 a tonne is the figure which keeps

cropping up when I talk to coal mining companies, the CNR, Ottawa or

the Japanese. We know that the surcharge is only $4 a tonne. Only $4 a

tonne is being set aside out of the quoted price of $85 a tonne f.o.b.

Prince Rupert. So there is a shortfall of $9 a tonne.

Somebody

will be putting up the $9 a tonne, and it won't be coming out of the

price paid by the foreign buyer, even if that buyer pays $85 a tonne at

Prince Rupert for our good grade metallurgical coal from northeastern

B.C. The sum of $9 a tonne is over and above the presently recoverable

cost. It is the order of magnitude of a subsidy — if I can put it that

way — which may be applied to northeast coal in the late 1980s and

1990s. Multiplying $9 a tonne by 7.5 million tonnes a year gives us a

figure of close to $70 million a year. We are looking at a $70 million

a year subsidy in the early years, beginning in the mid-1980s. Am I

right? No doubt the hon. minister will correct me if I am wrong in my

conclusion concerning who will pay for the new Anzac line or, more

correctly, how the capital costs associated with the new Anzac line

will be distributed between the foreign buyer and the taxpayer in this

country.

I have one last calculation. The shortfall at a

rate of 7.5 million tonnes a year is $70 million a year. At ten million

tonnes a year it is $50 million a year. At 20 million tonnes a year it

is only $10 million a year. So the break-even point, in terms of

volume, is between 20 million and 25 million tonnes. That's the volume

of northeast coal which would have to move in order for the $4

surcharge to cover all the capital costs. If we assume a sale of 7.5

million tonnes of coal a year to our offshore markets in the mid-1980s

and a sale of more than 20 million tonnes a year by the year 2000, then

the total subsidy, year after year over that 15-year interval, will be

about $500 million. In other words, the overall subsidy between now and

the year 2000 could be on the order of half a billion dollars. Of

course, everything would have to go right. There mustn't be any unusual

cost overruns on the new line. If there are, the taxpayer will pay for

these overruns as well.

I'd like the hon. minister to

comment on these rough calculations, because they give us the kind of

numbers which editorial writers are speculating about. Are they right,

or are they wrong? Is there something which the sharp pencil boys in

the private sector missed — those who are continually giving us numbers

to fret about? I hope the minister can clear up some of my concerns in

the process. I don't expect him to answer immediately, because I've

given him quite a few numbers, but I do think this is a matter of real

public concern.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the

member's questions, as I said yesterday, you can take a slide-rule and

you can come up with a lot of calculations depending on the end result

you want. I think that in his calculations the member is not

considering the amount of coal in the area, and the demand and

increasing price for that coal. That, as I said yesterday, is what we

have to consider. It's unfortunate that the coal happens to be hidden

behind a mountain range — not a great mountain range, but certainly

behind a mountain range. If the lay of the land were such that it was

level building of a railway track, that 77-mile spur that we're

building in there would cost in the vicinity — in escalated dollars —

of about $150 million. So that's one of the areas.

In all of the calculations that one wishes to make....

You're

not talking about any of the spin-off benefits or the thousands of

jobs. I have asked numerous economists to predict for me what the

benefit would be to the Canadian economy of an additional $5 billion of

yen coming into Canada. I think the writers, and those who would not

like to see this project go ahead — there are those people around as

well — are taking a very parochial view. Both my department and the

private sector have pointed to the $2.5 billion in taxes and economic

activity, which economists have a little bit of difficulty putting a

handle on.

I think what we have to consider here is the fact

that it's either we sell the coal or the the bulk of the purchase goes

to Australia. As I've said in this House before, and I'll say it again,

Canada is a trading nation. In order to survive and maintain the

standard of living that we enjoy in Canada today, we have to be a

trading nation. We can talk about building up secondary manufacturing

and manufacturing all we want to, but in order to do that we must have

a market. When it comes to building up a manufacturing base, with

approximately 25 million people in Canada we don't have that great a

market. The reason I'm pointing this out to the House this morning is

that we must export, and some of our natural resources must be

exported. Coking coal is a commodity which is not an energy source; it

is a commodity used in the making of steel, the same as we import

alumina into Kitimat. We import a natural resource from another country

and we process it here. We are exporting our coking coal and processing

it in the steel mills of Japan and around the world. The market for

coking coal is growing, and the price is increasing.

I think

if you were to go back and analyze when the southeast was opened up,

that was not an easy decision, as I remember, for the government of the

day. They had problems getting Roberts Bank built, and there were those

who said the project was not viable and wouldn't be good. All you have

to do now is look at the taxes that are being paid on an ongoing basis

to the benefit of social services that we supply here in the province

of British Columbia, and I think you can understand what I'm talking

about.

You can do a number of calculations, hon. member, but

you have to take into consideration the growing demand for coal; you

also have to take into consideration that the surcharge is an

escalating surcharge based on the increase in the price of coal. Nobody

can tell me what the price of coal is going to be in 1990, and I don't

think even the Japanese steel mills can tell what the price of coal is

going to be in 1990. That depends on a lot of factors.

It's

very easy to build inflation into this, but when we start to build

anything in British Columbia we talk in terms of today's dollars. No

one can tell me whether inflation is going to be 5 percent or 10

percent, but that is something we have to live with. As you know, this

government has done a great deal to keep inflation down in British

Columbia. As a matter of fact, the Vancouver cost-of-living index is

the lowest of any of the nine cities rated in Canada. I don't want to

get too political this morning, but this government certainly has done

a fantastic job in keeping inflation down.

I think that in order to go into this I would have to have

[ Page 3681 ]

economist go through this in detail, which I'd be happy to do. As I

say, there are a number of factors in the future inflation and the

price of coal. Nobody can predict that.

MS. BROWN:

I'd like to talk about the women's economic rights branch and ask the

minister a couple of questions that I asked him last year. He made a

commitment to get the answers to me, but I guess the wheels of the gods

grind slowly. I haven't received the responses yet, so I'm going to put

them to the minister again.

In the 1975 annual report we

were told that the objective of the women's economic rights branch were

to examine, plan and recommend in all issues affecting the economic

rights, economic development and socio-economic status of the women of

British Columbia. The report goes on to tell us that during that period

the department developed programs which ensured that benefits were

equal in terms of men and women who entered into interim planning

agreement studies, steel feasibility social impact studies and the

northeast coal agreement studies, in terms of seeing that women were

treated equally with men at all times in this.

It goes on to

itemize workshops which were held with women throughout the province in

Vancouver, Victoria, the Slocan Valley, Campbell River, Terrace, the

East Kootenays and Nelson. It talks about the branch being used as a

resource centre for women in terms of the many statistical inquiries

considering the position of women in the B.C. economy, and tells us

that that information was collected as a direct response from women's

groups in the province. It also talks about a paper done on women in

pensions, which again was presented to the Canadian Public Service

Pensions conference at Harrison Hot Springs that year, specifically

relating to what happens to women out of the pension scheme. It talks

about the coordinator of the branch speaking at women's organizations

and chambers of commerce and attending conferences generally talking

about the economic situation of women in this province.

I've

been through the 1979-80 annual report and I have found one sentence in

the entire report, which says: "Division staff have participated in

socio-economic and manpower evaluations, including several studies for

the interministerial equal opportunities committee." I have seen that

report and I know that's one thing that's been done. As opposed to

1975, where we had a full reporting on what was being done in terms of

the impact of the economic development on the women of this province,

in the 1979-80 report we get one sentence referring to that.

During

his estimates almost a year ago, on July 5, I raised a couple of

questions to the minister relating to the fact that in my perception

the women's economic rights branch had been phased out — that in fact

it no longer existed. The minister said: "I appreciate the member's

comments. However, the mandate of the women's economic rights branch

has not been wiped out, and to say so is not right. I would like to

suggest that you go to the ministry and have a talk with the person in

charge. As a matter of fact, the mandate has been widened." I was

fascinated by that response. I said to the minister that I would really

appreciate being told what the mandate was, the ways in which it had

been expanded and also something about the budget. I know the 1975

budget included one coordinator, one senior staff, two junior staff and

a clerk steno, costing in the vicinity of $61,000.

The

minister then stood up and said: "I'll be happy to let you have a copy

of the increased mandate. I don't know if we'll be able to actually

break out the number of people who work on this program, because it's

been integrated. I'm particularly interested in your commitment, and

I'll be very happy to get the information of the expanded mandate and

expanded budget to you." That was on July 5 that that commitment was

made. He said: "I'm particularly interested in your commitment and I

will get the information about the expanded mandate of the women's

economic rights branch and its expanded budget." That was nearly a year

and a month ago. Mr. Chairman, and to this point I have not received

anything from the minister either about the expanded mandate or the

expanded budget. As I said before, the only thing we have is one

sentence in the annual report dealing with this. So I want to put a

couple of questions to the minister and ask him whether it's possible

to speed up his response, because I don It want to have to wait a year

in terms of this.

May I have, articulated by the minister — I don't need it in writing, because Hansard

will do that for us — the expanded mandate of the women's economics

rights branch? May I have, articulated by the minister, the expanded

budget of the women's economics rights branch? I would also like to

have a list of all the women's groups who have been in any kind of

contact with your ministry on issues of economic development as they

pertain to women. I would also like to have a list of all the projects

which have been funded by your ministry. I'll accept this information

verbally; I don't want to have to wait a year for you to put it in

writing. I want a list of the projects, Mr. Chairman, if the minister

is listening. I also want a list of any consultations done by the

expanded women's economics rights branch. What conferences were

attended? What groups were spoken to? What groups were consulted with?

What information was given? In what ways were women in the province

assisted by this particular branch in terms of their economic rights?

Appendix

B of the 1975 report talked about programs which would ensure the

provision of support, advice and encouragement for women setting up

their own business. May I have a list from the minister of instances in

which provision of support, advice and encouragement for women setting

up their own business was afforded by this particular branch?

would also like a report from the ministry — on this one I'm willing to

wait and accept it in writing — on the impact of the economic

development programs of the province on the women of this province,

because this was one of the mandates which was set down in appendix B

in 1975, and we're still waiting fm that report. I want to repeat that,

Mr. Chairman: I want a reporting of the impact of the economic

development programs of this province on the women of the province.

Mr. Chairman, the federal government has been doing that, and they have issued information — I'm quoting from the The Daily Colonist ,

because I haven't got my own copy with me here — which would seem to

indicate that the gap is widening and that, in fact, the impact is a

negative one. The federal government's report is that "Canadian

employers, economic planners and decision-makers have been shortsighted

and 'languorous'" is the word they use, "in terms of dealing with the

economic status of women in this country." Now in 1975, with that in

mind, this particular branch was established. Presumably, it's not only

been in existence since then, but in the minister's own words of July

5, 1975, it's been expanded — not just its mandate but its budget as

well. So let's have the reporting. With an expanded mandate and an

expanded budget, we should be able to see some kind of

[ Page 3682 ]

positive

response in terms of the impact of the economic development of this

province on women. We should be going counter to the Canadian

reporting, and if that is true, then I would like the minister to give

us that information at this time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to endeavour to answer some of the member's

questions, and I'd like to start out by saying that certainly with the

economy of this province growing the way it is and strengthening it,

certainly every day that goes by there are indeed more opportunities

not only for women, but indeed opportunity for both sexes in the

province to improve their lot. The member still seems to be under the

misapprehension that there was a women's branch set up in the ministry.

It was set up but it was never funded, nor were any of the positions

authorized by Treasury Board when I took over this ministry. But we

have put on a number of seminars throughout the province. Those

seminars, Mr. Chairman, are not limited to any one particular

individual of any one particular sex. Certainly those opportunities are

open to everybody in the province. We do not want to discriminate

against any particular sex in this province; as I say, economic

opportunities are open to everybody.

Now with regard to the

particular branch that the member thinks was established, it is now

part of the socioeconomic analysis unit in the economic analysis and

research bureau. Through this particular area, we do identify, in the

studies that we do, opportunities, particularly for women. That is on

new projects and special studies that we are doing, and there is

special emphasis given in these studies to the women of our province.

might outline for the member that some of the major initiatives

completed or ongoing since May 10, 1979, include: a community profile

of Ocean Falls — this will be published in the near future; a study of

advancement opportunities in the B.C. public service; a study of

selected classification, by a study of 1,200 public servants, to

determine how advancement occurs for both men and women — the study is

completed and has been forwarded to the Hon. Evan Wolfe a statistical

analysis by sex of the British Columbia public service, 1979 — this

department played the lead role in establishing a service-wide data

base profiling the locations of men and women in the British Columbia

public service, and the report has been released; the coordinating of a

provincial socioeconomic impact review of the Foothills pipeline, which

took the opposite sex into special consideration; and the assessment of

socioeconomic impacts of resource projects, playing a lead role in

assessment — setting terms of reference of review of socioeconomic

impacts of resource projects, monitoring models, development of range

of models for monitoring, costing socioeconomic impacts of resource

development.

I would like to remind the member, Mr.

Chairman, that setting up a bureau in my department is not going to be

half as beneficial to the women in the workforce in this province as

will be a strong and growing economy with opportunities for everybody

in the province. Maybe the member would outline it for me, because I'm

not aware of any great impact that the federal government department of

opportunities for women has had on the labour force in Canada. I can't

really see it. I think that education, and certainly an advancing

economy, will be the best way of assuring that all people in this

province.... I think the member must also realize that this government

made quite a step forward in protecting the rights of women when we

passed a law through this Legislature indeed seeing that women are

equally treated in cases of separation and marriage breakdown. I think

that that was a major breakthrough, and I think that if you did a case

history you would see that many women who have gone on their own are

doing quite well by themselves.

MS. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, I didn't realize that the minister of small business was

responsible for the Family Relations Act, but I certainly want to thank

him for it now that I know that it comes under his purview. I didn't

know that that was his.

However, I just want to get some

specific answers to the specific questions I raised. I quote from the

minister's own words, when he said that "the women's economic rights

branch is still doing the same function as it was before; as a matter

of fact, the function is being widened." I'm quoting specifically from

the statement that the minister made. I know about the public service

report; I have a copy of it. But the branch was established not just to

help women in the public service, but women throughout the province.

don't want to repeat the questions that I raised before. Would the

minister please read the Blues and in less than a year, if possible,

get me the answers to the very specific questions I asked in terms of

the impact of economic development on the women of the province.

MR. SEGARTY:

I am pleased to take my place in the debate of the estimates of the

Minister of Economic Development. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are

three coal companies currently operating in southeastern British

Columbia: Kaiser Resources, Byron Creek Collieries and Fording Coal.

Each of those companies has expansion plans underway. Fording has an

expansion plan underway at Elkford, and Kaiser, which recently signed

an agreement with Korea, is going ahead with the Greenhills

development. Crows Nest Industries are constructing a mine just north

of Sparwood.

The East Kootenay region of British Columbia

has been a reliable supplier of coal down through the years, and in

order to continue to be a reliable supplier of coal and to accommodate

the expansion plans of these coal companies it's important that the

Roberts Bank port facility be expanded now. Without the commitment to

expand the Roberts Bank port facility immediately, without a guarantee

that Roberts Bank will be expanded, these projects are in jeopardy.

Roberts Bank is operating at capacity and it's important that this

project be undertaken as quickly as possible. It's expected to double

to 20 million tonnes a year by the end of the 1980 decade.

I'm

aware that in 1977 the British Columbia supreme court ruled that the

province of British Columbia owned the land on which the Roberts Bank

port facility is located — and, indeed, the Georgia strait. Currently

Court of Canada. But surely in 1980 an agreement of some kind can be

worked out between the government of British Columbia and the

jeopardy the thousands of jobs for British Columbians and $1 billion in

revenue for British Columbia in the 1980s alone.

As a representative in this Legislature from southeastern British Columbia, I have no objection to the expansion into

[ Page 3683 ]

the

northeast coal fields. I think it's an important step forward. It's

something that the British Columbia Social Credit government has always

done. They have always had foresight in creating economic development

in the interior of British Columbia, and certainly if it weren't for

the Social Credit government's past history in pioneering the interior

of British Columbia, there would still be nothing beyond Hope.

However,

I have some concern — just one — and the people of my riding have a

concern, and that is that there will not be a $30,000-per-man job

subsidy for workers going into that region to work in the coal

industry. They've got some concern that that might steal the employees

of the people of our region. I wonder if the minister could answer that

question and perhaps give me a breakdown on where the Roberts Bank port

facility is — where we're going with it — and how long it's going to

take to get the question of ownership resolved or the expansion plans

underway.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the hon.

member's questions, I know that he has grave concern for his

constitutuency, and so do I as a matter of fact. As you know, during my

missions to Korea and Japan I naturally worked very hard to increase

our coal sales from that area, and have met with Pohang Iron and Steel

on a number of occasions to endeavour to obtain additional contracts

for British Columbia. I'm certainly very happy that Kaiser recently did

sign a contract with Pohang Iron and Steel.

As the member

knows, during the past few months negotiations have been going on

between the province and the federal government with regard to Roberts

Bank. It is indeed unfortunate that these negotiations have taken so

long, but they have taken some time because of the court case and the

whole question of ownership of offshore lands in the Strait of Georgia.

I'm certainly very pleased to announce to the member that yesterday I forwarded to the Hon. Jean-Luc Pépin

an agreement outlining British Columbia's position. As I said in the

beginning, the agreement does not prejudice the Strait of Georgia case

or the long-term ownership. However, I would like to say that we are

putting some safeguards for British Columbia in that agreement. One of

the safeguards is that we want to see the overall plan that the

National Harbours Board has for the expansion of Roberts Bank. We want

to ensure that when we give them the title — and we're quite prepared

to give them the title for the land they need — they will go ahead and

develop it immediately, because it is needed. I think that rather than

just pass over the land, we want to ensure that they are indeed going

to spend that $60 million, or whatever it is, and ensure that it's

developed. We've also built in some safeguards — indeed, for all of

western Canada, shippers and producers — to ensure that, because we're

basically giving the federal government a $20 million gift in giving

them the land there, the rates on that through-port are not going to

hamper the movement of goods from all western Canadian provinces. That

has indeed gone to the Hon. Jean Luc Pépin by special courier. I'm

looking forward to him coming out in the very near future, and to us

sitting down and signing an agreement.

I might also say that

the province has once again guaranteed all the hydraulic studies. They

can proceed immediately. We've said, as we did in the past, that we

will be responsible in the long run if the land should revert to us or

whatever. It is all involved in a court case — and you know that I am

not a lawyer. But we are guaranteeing them funds so that they can go

ahead and do their hydraulic studies and so forth. I am very pleased to

say to the member — through you, Mr. Chairman — that we have reached

what I hope will be an agreement for the speedy conclusion of the

development of the great port of Roberts Bank.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister recalls a meeting with Mr.

Arthur Elworthy that occurred in mid-September of last year — to be

precise, the Wednesday prior to the minister's leaving for his trip to

Tokyo and Korea.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I had

several meetings with Mr. Elworthy during the time that I was

responsible for the operation of B.C. Steamship Company. Most of those

meetings were held in confidence. I certainly wouldn't want to tell the

member all the things that I talked to Mr. Elworthy about, particularly

in my first meeting with him.

MR. BARBER: Does the minister have confidence that Mr. Elworthy is an honest man?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. first member for Victoria, I

think that is a very unfair question. I respect the integrity of all my

fellow human beings until proven otherwise.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Elworthy informed me on April 2 of this year, and he informed other

persons on later dates, that on the Wednesday prior to your leaving for

Tokyo and Korea you advised him clearly and specifically that the

cabinet had decided to award the vessel Queen of Surrey

to B.C. Steamship Company in order that it might be used on the

Victoria-Seattle run this year. Is Mr. Elworthy correct in his

recounting of that conversation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, as I stated not too long ago. I had many negotiations

with Mr. Elworthy. If the member wants to talk about a responsibility

which I no longer have, I might as well tell him right now that I am

not going to bring to the floor of this Legislature or outside in

public, now or at any time in the future, any of the conversations held

between myself and Mr. Elworthy. I can see that it will do Mr. Elworthy

no good, it will do B.C. Steamship Company no good and it will do the

general public of British Columbia no good.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I might remind the hon. first member for Victoria that restrictions

under Committee of Supply debate do not afford the proper opportunity

for discussing actions for which a minister is not responsible.

MR. BARBER:

That's quite so. The Chairman knows, of course, that the minister is

still on the board of B.C. Steamship Company. There's no denying that.

It's also clear that candid and straightforward replies to these

questions about decisions taken in September of last year might also do

some harm to the government, although the minister didn't mention that.

Did the minister instruct the board of directors of B.C. Steamship Company to proceed with drawings for the refit of the vessel Queen of Surrey ?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 3684 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I might like to bring the hon. first member for Victoria

up to date and inform him that I am no longer a director of B.C.

Steamship Company. I would suggest that he direct his questions to the

present cabinet minister responsible for B.C. Steamship Company, the

Hon. Alex Fraser, Minister of Transportation and Highways.

MR. BARBER:

I am interested to hear of the change in management. That may or may

not be a good sign for the corporation. Nonetheless, it is an

established principle here that before awarding this year's salary we

have a right to ask about how last year's salary was spent. That's an

honoured principle in the parliamentary tradition. So again I ask the

minister: did he in fact instruct — through Mr. Elworthy or in any

other way — the board of directors of B.C. Steamship Company to proceed

with the drawings for a refit of the vessel Queen of Surrey in order that it might be used on the Victoria-Seattle run?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not much of a lawyer, but I again advise the member

that the meetings I had with Mr. Elworthy were held in my office, in

confidence. I have no intention of doing so, because to answer specific

questions about that would really mislead this Legislature as to the

total picture of the conversation. With respect, as I advised the hon.

first member for Victoria, to answer specific questions about that

conversation would maybe give a distorted view of the total

conversation, and I have no intention of going into the total

conversation.

MR. BARBER: I rise because I have

charity in my heart, and deep feelings of sympathy for the minister.

He's perfectly correct: we too worry about distorted conversations.

That's why I'm asking him to present, without breaking confidences, his

side of the conversation; because, you see, at the moment the public

only has one side of the conversation, and that's Mr. Elworthy's side.

As a matter of sympathy and human compassion, which I feel deeply for

the minister, would he take this opportunity, favourably granted to him

by the opposition — because we care about him — to tell his side of the

story?

Did he or did he not in any way whatsoever advise and instruct the board of B.C. Steamship that they were to win the vessel Queen of Surrey

for use on the Victoria-Seattle run? It's because I care about the

minister and his reputation that I ask this. I wouldn't want Mr.

Elworthy's side to be the only side that got out.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

As I say, I'm certainly reluctant to discuss the activities of British

Columbia Steamship, in that I'm no longer responsible for the operation

of that corporation. Mr. Chairman, I'll take your guidance in this

matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member have any other

questions? Is he prepared to continue with those questions, and leave

the Chair a moment to get back to the other matter?

MR. BARBER:

Is the minister aware that on the basis of advice which he is alleged

to have given B.C. Steamship, that corporation subsequently....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. If you could possibly pursue another avenue

while I'm reviewing the matter that the minister has asked for guidance

on, it would be appreciated; otherwise, I'll just have to ask for a few

moments for consideration. I'm sure the member has other topics he

wishes to discuss.

MR. BARBER: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you don't want me to ask anything at all about the decision to place the Queen of Surrey on the Victoria-Seattle run? Is that correct — nothing whatsoever?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Until I've made a....

MR. BARBER: You need to reflect on this for a while.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

I'd like to have it straight in my mind exactly what it is that Mr.

Chairman is going to reflect on. The question before us is: when there

is a change in a ministry, are we allowed to ask the minister what

decisions were made in the previous year? Are we allowed to review what

the minister has done in the previous year? Obviously we can't ask the

new minister; the new minister wasn't in charge at the time. So that's

the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. That's what we're taking a couple of moments for.

The first member for Victoria continues on anything else.

MR. BARBER:

Such carte blanche! I'd like to talk about music education for the

gifted, and to point out how Benjamin Britten uniquely stands in the

achievement of western...blah-blah. Obviously I can't talk about quite

anything.

Well, I'll give a little speech then. I won't ask any questions.

Without

referring to the minister's own involvement, I'll talk about the

problems associated with the Victoria-Seattle run and the commitment

that the people of Victoria would like to win from the government.

However, I'm not referring to the decision made by the hon. minister

last year, but rather a decision made by the government, as announced

on January 31 of this year by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis.)

think that even the most ardent Socred will admit that the

Victoria-Seattle service has become a run plagued by chaos, losses to

the taxpayer, and losses to the general economy of, the tourist sector.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the member would

like to make a political speech regarding the Seattle-Victoria run, but

I'd like to ask him to relate it to my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, on the point that was raised, I think an analogy would be

the best way. For example, a minister who was previously responsible

for another ministry, i.e. a member who may have been.... For example,

the Attorney-General has now changed; in his new capacity he could no

longer be asked questions about matters that happened while he was

Attorney-General. The analogy would be the same in this case, hon.

member. It is a long-standing practice and tradition of the House that

only his present administrative duties may be discussed in committee.

[ Page 3685 ]

Therefore strict relevance must be adhered to, and questions regarding any previous capacity would be out of order.

On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, don't you feel that this may be a dangerous rule? A

premier who wanted to hide something that happens in a ministry — and

I'm not saying the Premier does, of course — could at the last moment

before estimates come into this House change the ministry, and what

that Premier is trying to hide would forever be hidden by your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, it is not my ruling; it is the

interpretation of our

standing orders and the traditions of parliament. It is not for me to

alter or change what exists in our standing orders and the traditions

of parliamentary discussion. The point that the hon. member made may be

a very valid point. Nevertheless, the Chair has no alternative but to

apply the rules that govern our debate. Those rules are strict

relevance and current administrative responsibility.

MR. LEA:

On the same point of order, hypothetically the minister that we're

questioning now could have been taken off the board of B.C. Steamship

for that very purpose — that the truth could never be found. All the

shuffling that went on could have been to avoid having questions

answered in the House. That could be the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, in the first place it is virtually impossible for the

Chair to consider hypothetical questions, but if that argument were

extended and if, for example, a minister had occupied two or three

previous ministries, then the argument could be carried on that each of

these ministries could then be responsible. The statement by the Chair

on the matter is one that has guided parliament for virtually centuries.

MR. LEA:

When we were questioning the Premier earlier in the estimates with the

very questions that we were asking this minister, the Premier said that

he couldn't answer them and we were to ask this minister when it became

his estimate time. The Premier has skilfully avoided answering the

questions and set up a case where the minister, according to the rules,

can't answer the case. It's a perfect coverup.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the term "coverup" has on numerous occasions been ruled

unparliamentary. I would ask, in the best traditions of parliament, if

the member would withdraw.

MR. LEA: I withdraw.

MRS. DAILLY:

I have just a further point of order on this matter, Mr. Chairman. I

think the opposition could accept your

interpretation — an

interpretation that, as you say, has been used in former sessions under

former Chairmen — but I think we would probably be ready to cease

debate on this if we could have an assurance that there is someone on

the government side that we will be able to direct these valid

questions to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as much as

the Chair would like to assist the member, it is far beyond the Chair's

capacity or competence to give any such assurance. That would have to

come during questioning and certainly not at the insistence or

otherwise of the Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: Then I

understand that we will have the opportunity to ask these questions of

another minister, and the

interpretation will come from the Chairman as

to whether that minister is the one we can apply the questions to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. BARBER:

I will therefore recast all of my questions as follows: in a debate on

the economic development of southern Vancouver Island, I wish to ask

the minister's comments on certain decisions that were made in the past

and may be made in the future regarding the economic health and

vitality of the community which I have the privilege to serve as an MLA.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's never been better.

MR. BARBER: It's never been better. I'm grateful for the flattery. Thank you. I'm sure that's not what you intended.

questions to the minister do not relate to decisions that he may or may

not have made in mid-September of last year that cost the taxpayer

$54,000. Rather, I will ask him to comment on the economic impact of

certain decisions that were made by the former minister responsible for

the B.C. Steamship Corporation. I ask him to offer that commentary as a

means of guiding us in Victoria in such a way that we do not again have

to suffer in terms of economic development — the ministry and the theme

for which this individual is responsible — the same problems that we

suffered last fall and are suffering currently. Within the strictest

interpretation of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I therefore ask the

minister to comment on the economic impact to the people of Victoria on

the decision that was apparently made to take the Princess Marguerite off the run and replace it with the vessel Queen of Surrey .

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, one of the guiding rules of our parliament is that we

cannot do indirectly by one means what we cannot do by another. The

member, I'm sure, is very familiar with that guiding principle, and I

must ask that he rephrase his questions in a more appropriate and

strictly relevant manner.

MR. LAUK: I rise on a point

of order. I was in my office, Mr. Chairman, when I heard the recent

ruling that Mr. Chairman made. We sat in this Legislature for 27 days

questioning the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK:

I'm making a point of order that I wish the Chairman to consider. The

Premier, instead of answering those questions, said: ''Deal with the

minister in charge." When we asked questions on B.C. Steamships, he

pointed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and

said: "You will ask that minister. I will not answer the

[ Page 3686 ]

questions in my estimates. It's not my responsibility; it's the responsibility of the minister in charge."

Mr.

Chairman, rightly or wrongly — but rightly, because we accept the

rulings of the Chair — you supported the Premier in that point of view.

Now we're in a position where we want to question this minister on

those very subjects that the Premier straight-armed. Are we precluded

from doing that? If so, the Legislature then becomes, in committee,

incapable of questioning these ministers on their performance of their

public duty, and I'm sure that the rules should not be interpreted —

and there is lots of precedent for this — so as to defeat the basic

purpose of the Legislature. That's exactly what's happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you for your point of order, hon. member. The member clearly,

though, is canvassing a matter that had already been clarified by the

Chair. But as the hon. member is well aware, notwithstanding the points

raised by the member and notwithstanding what one member, or minister

or another may have at one time or another stated, the Chair is

powerless to do otherwise than to deal with the standing orders and

rules that are at the Chair's command. To do otherwise would be a

violation of those rules and a violation of the responsibility of the

Chair.

MR. LAUK: The overriding rule that I asked the

Chairman to consider in this case is the responsibility of the

Committee of Supply to question ministers in their area of performance.

Where it appears to the Chair that the committee has no opportunity to

investigate these areas because of a literal

interpretation of the

rules, the Chair must be flexible enough to allow the investigation.

It's happened in previous years — I haven't the examples before me, but

it's happened in committee before, and the Chairman has allowed members

to question ministers who have just changed responsibilities. Surely

that's in keeping with the flow of business in the House in allowing

members of the opposition to fulfil their responsibility to the people

of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon.

member. I sincerely appreciate the hon. member's intent in his

questions on advice from the Chair, but short of the member actually

quoting a specific instance to the Chair, I must again reiterate that

the Chair is powerless to do other than enforce the regulations, the

rules and the guidelines that are before the House.

MR. LAUK:

I can cite one example. When the Hon. Mr. Strachan changed part of his

responsibilities — I think it was in the spring of 1975 — the Chairman

of the committee allowed the inquiry of Mr. Strachan to be pursued by

the opposition members, even though those responsibilities had been

transferred to another minister. The reason for that was that those

responsibilities were transferred in the course of estimates and the

minister to whom they'd been transferred had already been before the

Committee of Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. members, if the member would be good enough to supply the Chair

with that ruling, the Chair would certainly consider the matter, but in

the meantime, and in the absence of such a specific, the ruling of the

Chair must stand. The Chair will, of course, be receptive to any such

information from the member and would welcome the same.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, it's a difficult matter for the opposition to pursue

questions which involve the expenditure of public funds when we're

denied leave of the Chair to ask the only minister of whom we can

properly ask them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must advise the member that the Chair gives advice and rulings.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the ruling which you were attempting to

enunciate earlier. I have heard Harvey say it before; I am sure he's

got it written down somewhere.

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

MR. BARBER: The Speaker.

What

I am now attempting to do, if I may, is demonstrate the economic impact

in my riding of a decision taken to at least temporarily put the Surrey

on the Victoria-Seattle run in place of the Marguerite .

One

of the impacts of that decision was that the Crown spent $54,000

needlessly in payments to a company called Marine Design Associates

Ltd. located in my riding. I am therefore describing the economic

impact here in my riding of the decision to make payments on November

20, 1979, in the amount of $24,656.98 to Marine Design Associates Ltd.,

493 Garbally Road, Victoria. I am talking about the economic impact in

my riding of a decision to spend $20,140.23 in October 1979 to make

payments to the same company for the same apparent purpose, which was

to pay for refit drawings of the vessel Queen of Surrey .

is a curious thing that the government would decide to spend $54,000 in

my riding for the economic impact that decision had. It is a curious

thing because it would appear to be the case that the minister formerly

responsible advised Mr. Elworthy that the vessel Queen of Surrey

would be put on the Victoria-Seattle run. On the basis of that, we then

examine the economic impact of the expenditure of $54,000 by B.C.

Steamship Company in my riding to provide refit drawings for the vessel

Surrey .

I have a

copy of a letter dated September 26, 1979, signed by Mr. A.B. Elworthy,

president and general manager of the corporation. It is directed to a

Mr. R.L. Marwood, principal naval architect, Marine Design Associates

Ltd., 493 Garbally Road. The letter reads:

"Dear Sirs:

"Re: MV Queen of Surrey .

Further to our recent conversation, this will confirm that British

Columbia Steamship Company, 1975, Ltd. wishes your company to commence

research and design work on the prospect of placing MV Queen of Surrey on the Victoria-Seattle route.

"This

will include all necessary ship drawings, Victoria and Seattle terminal

approach changes and such other modifications and approvals to place

the vessel in service in a fully operational manner by May 1, 1980, as

set out in your proposal of January 1978. The service should reflect

the growing awareness for foot passengers to make the voyage from

Seattle to Victoria, but should not preclude the increased auto

capacity of MV Queen of Surrey .

"This

work is to be carried out at normal consulting rates as prescribed by

the British Columbia Ministry of Highways schedule, and we would

require you

[ Page 3687 ]

to liaise with Mr. G. Hoare, company comptroller in this matter.

Yours very truly,

A.B. Elworthy."

I wonder whether the minister could tell us why, in his

opinion, the economic impact described by this payment of $54,000 would

have been justified — why, in his opinion, such expenditures of public

funds to the benefit of Marine Design Associates for placing the Queen of Surrey on the Victoria-Seattle run could be justified.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I certainly can appreciate the member's very deep concern

about the question that he is trying to raise in the Legislature this

morning. I might say that I am sure that if his concern is as great as

it appears in this Legislature this morning, he would have taken the

opportunity many months ago to come to my office, sit down and

endeavour to obtain the answers to those questions. The thought would

certainly never enter my mind to maybe say that the member is trying to

make some political hay out of a situation. I might remind the member

that British Columbia Ferry Corporation dumps I forget how many

millions and millions of people in Victoria every year.

For

the benefit of the House and the member, Mr. Chairman, I might give

some statistics about the fantastic growth of Vancouver Island in the

last decade. Certainly it is very difficult at the present time to

travel anywhere on Vancouver Island.... People are happy. Business is

booming. The hotels in downtown Victoria, I understand, are running at

practically 100 percent capacity. Business is very good indeed, because

we have certainly, under this government, created a good climate for

the economy. I don't care whether you go to Duncan, Nanaimo, Port

Hardy, Port McNeill, Comox, Courtenay, Port Alberni or Tofino, no

matter where you go on great Vancouver Island the economy is indeed

very strong.

Yes, there is great development taking place on

Vancouver Island, and, with regard to Victoria, I might inform the hon.

first member for Victoria that in the last decade the population of

greater Victoria has gone from 189,200 people in 1970 to 231,000 people

in 1980. The gross income for the population in 1969 was $596,100,000

and some ten years later, in 1979, that has almost quadrupled to

$2,103,720,000. That is a tremendous increase. I think that Victoria is

certainly growing, and I took forward to seeing some new hotels built

in Victoria so that we can accommodate the tremendous growth that is

taking place in Victoria.

The trading area population has

also grown. It was 356,000 in 1970 and that has grown to 440,000 in

1980. I say that's a very substantial growth. When we look at the gross

income of the trading area population we see that it has almost

quadrupled in the last ten years as well. In 1969 it was $1,121,400,000

and, as I say, that has almost quadrupled to $4,007,100,000 in 1979.

That, I would think, is a very substantial growth, and it is a growth

that I don't think is enjoyed by every city in North America. As a

matter of fact, some are going backwards. But here in greater Victoria

the growth has been really fantastic.

Construction shows a

tremendous growth from $89 million in 1969 to $159,612,624 in 1979. If

we look at the assessment, it is also nearly double. The value of

retail trade — and I'm sure that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

would be interested in this figure — was $320 million in 1969 and in

1979 it way more than doubled to $765 million, which was a tremendous

growth in ten years. If you project that to the next decade, you can

see that there certainly is a great deal of growth taking place here in

Victoria.

I could go on with several other figures, like

manufacturing value and so forth, but I did just want to point out to

the hon. first member for Victoria that there is indeed a good growth

taking place. I might say that at the same time we are preserving the

aesthetic value of this great capital city. Progress is being made in

developing the Inner Harbour, and I look forward to Victoria growing

but not diminishing the way of life that we are able.... Those of us

particularly from out of town, who have the opportunity to work here

with the government, certainly appreciate that. That way of life is not

enjoyed — I know this has nothing to do with economy and I hope you'll

just allow me a few moments — by all the citizens in some of the other

areas of our great province.

Certainly there is growth in

economy. I have worked, as you know, Mr. Chairman, with the local

people in Victoria in establishing an industrial commissioner. The

member might also know that we have worked through the British Columbia

Development Corporation to establish a marine biology centre in Saanich.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I realize, Mr. Member, that it's Saanich and the Islands.

seems to me that I have here it here somewhere, if the Chair will just

give me a moment.... I might outline for the member some of the ways in

which this ministry has cooperated with people in this area. Mr.

Chairman, for the record maybe I might advise the hon. first member for

Victoria about some of the projects we in my ministry have cooperated

on. The Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development did fund 50

percent, with the Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission, the

industrial commissioner to help economic development in the area. We're

working now to ensure that indeed that industrial development

commission does carry on.

The British Columbia Development

Corporation offered assistance to the municipality of Saanich — I

realize that area is not in the member's riding, but it certainly has a

bearing on the economic activity of Victoria. We offered assistance to

the municipality of Saanich for the development of industrial parks.

The British Columbia Development Corporation looks forward to working

with them. As I said, it's not a smoke-stack industrial park. It's an

industrial park which will not leave any pollution but will still

provide jobs and will assist the economy of Victoria.

As you

know, we have also given financial assistance to Trident Aircraft to

get established out at the airport; hopefully that will be a very clean

industry and one of high technology. It will be good: it will fit in

with the overall development of Saanich and Victoria.

We are building a hangar at the airport to assist the aviation manufacturing industry.

British

Columbia Development Corporation is putting together a marine

technology centre in conjunction with the federal government, to be

located next to the federal institute. I haven't got the latest report

on that, but I understand that most of the space in that centre has

indeed been taken up. It too will be a high-technology industry and

will not offer any pollution. This minister is certainly very happy to

see this

[ Page 3688 ]

take

place through the Development Corporation, which will assist in the

economic growth of the Island. No, this ministry didn't do it, Mr.

Chairman, but certainly the rebuilding of the Crystal Gardens was on

the initiative of this government, and it will assist the economy. It

will allow visitors to maybe spend an extra day or so going through the

Crystal Gardens.

Also, I won't take credit for the

convention centre, but I'm certainly very interested in it because it

has to do with helping the economy of the area.

Mr.

Chairman, I won't waste the time of the House, but there are a number

of other areas where the government has taken the initiative, partly

through my department, to assist the economy of this area. I'm very

pleased with the results, and I understand that the business community

of greater Victoria is also very pleased and happy with the type of

growth taking place here in Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I

thank the minister for his lengthy, obscure and completely unrelated

answer to the questions I raised. I would like to, sardonically,

congratulate the government on wasting $54,000 in my riding in payments

to Marine Design Associates Ltd. for the ill-advised scheme dreamed up

by a minister, who is no longer responsible, to replace the vessel Princess Marguerite with the vessel Queen of Surrey .

We're not allowed to ask questions of the minister who did it, even

though we're in his estimates. However, I do wish, again sardonically,

to congratulate the government for misspending $54,000 on a ridiculous

scheme to put the Queen of Surrey

where it does not belong. I would like to inform the minister that the

design, which was the result of this $54,000 waste of taxpayers' money,

now takes the form of a painting in the office of Walter Fisher, who is

the owner and manager of the Swiftsure Inn. If the minister is

interested in seeing the results of his handiwork, he might want to go

to the office of the Swiftsure Inn, where he will see the design for

the Surrey that never was on the Seattle-Victoria line. I thank the

minister for the government's investment of the totally unnecessary

amount of $54,000 in the economy of Victoria in order to refit a vessel

that didn't belong there.

I would like to observe as well that, thanks to the government, so far, at least as of June 30 this year, the Queen of Prince Rupert , the replacement vessel for the Princess Marguerite ,

by way of a deficit has contributed $1.1 million to the economy of

Victoria. Again I thank the government for unnecessarily spending $1.1

million this summer to subsidize losses on the hopeless venture of the

Victoria-Seattle run.

I would also like to thank the

minister for the anticipated impact of the subsidies that will be

required to make up for the jetfoil losses and for the $1.2 million

cost of the refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert .

would also like to thank the minister, again sardonically, for allowing

us the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of Social Credit mismanagement

by unnecessary payments and wasteful expenditures to cover up the fact

that they bungled the Victoria-Seattle run. So I do thank the minister,

more or less sincerely, for making such generous payments that were

never needed and that, as the result of good planning, would never have

been made in the first place here in my riding, to cover up the fact

that they blew it by taking the Princess Marguerite off the service.

I'm pleased with the economic impact of these unnecessary expenditures

in my riding, and I congratulate the minister for his personal

responsibility for them.

MR. LEA: A moment ago, when

the minister was winding up part of his speech, he said he didn't want

to waste the time of this House. For three and a half hours yesterday

afternoon and today he has wasted the time of the House. Before, the

minister had a different style; he yelled and screamed, was full of

bombast and didn't answer the questions. Today he speaks quietly and

doesn't answer the questions. Many of the questions that my colleague,

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), asked were questions that

were asked during another waste of time in this House.

asked all of these questions of the Premier. The Premier said, "Ask the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development," and then cleverly

transferred all of the duties away from that minister so we can't do

it. I would not call it a coverup so I can't call it anything, because

I can't think of any other name to describe the situation — a clever,

clever coverup, to make sure that the opposition and the people of this

province don't find out what this government has done in the past year.

That's what we're going through here. We went through it for hours with

the Premier. We've gone through it for three and a half hours with the

minister on coal, Ocean Falls and the ferry situation here in Victoria.

Three and a half hours of no answers and quiet mumbo jumbo is what

we've had to go through.

We don't think the minister's going

to answer any questions; that's our opinion. The Premier didn't through

days of questioning. The minister in three and a half hours has

indicated to the House that he doesn't intend to answer any question

other than questions that have already been answered through public

knowledge. We do not intend to waste the time of this House and the

taxpayers' money by keeping this House longer than it should be kept to

get nothing. The minister may as well have told his staff to stay at

home; we get nothing from them. He has, over the course of his

stewardship of this portfolio, been a disaster, from the opposition's

point of view, I believe from the people's point of view, and I'm also

sure from many of his colleagues' points of view.

He's been

described in the press as a disaster time and time again. I think

almost everyone agrees with the press. We're going to vote against this

minister's salary because we feel he's not earning his money. We feel

he's doing a disservice to this province by not putting Industry and

Small Business Development in the forefront of the priorities of this

government. He is a close confidante of the Premier, the top adviser to

the Premier and is described by the press as a buffoon inadequate and

incompetent.

We will be voting against this. This is the

last you're going to hear from us on this minister. We're not going to

get any answers; we're positive of that. He is a disaster. The press is

right. The people are right. We agree with the press and the people.

We're willing to let this go and vote against this salary.

Vote 134 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

[ Page 3689 ]

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 17

Barrett

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Lea

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

Vote 135: administration, $8,567,203 — approved.

Vote 136: small business development, $2,031,695 approved.

Vote 137: grants, $5,765,500 — approved.

Vote 138: federal — provincial shared-cost programs, $41,032,000 — approved.

Vote 139: building occupancy charges, $715,000 approved.

Vote 140: computer and consulting charges, $849,000 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report great resolution.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND

SECURITY AGENCIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I want to offer on this section. I'd

like to amend

section 25, line 3, by inserting, after the word "member"

and before "including," the words "one member who is not connected or

has been a member of a security business."

I raised this in

second reading. In respect to the advisory council, there should be at

least one person who is not connected with the industry at all. In fact

we are talking about a consumer — somebody who has an interest as a

consumer, not because he has been in the business. I think that it

would be worthwhile putting it in the bill. There are five members. I

don't see why it is not possible to put forward an amendment now to

make it at least one member who is not connected with the security

industry. It is a good move because we are constantly having problems.

As I pointed out the other day, we are dealing here with people who do

quasi-police work.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member has a copy of his amendment. Is it in writing, Mr. Member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's understanding, hon. Attorney-General, is that he hasn't moved it yet.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, but while he is talking I would like to read it.

MR. LEVI:

I pointed out in second reading that there is very often a problem in

respect to police matters or quasi-police matters. Non-police people

are often kept out of some of the advisory councils or boards connected

with police, I have in mind, for instance, CLEU, which I raised the

other day. It is an excellent organization dealing with a very specific

part of crime prevention. Originally that piece of legislation was seen

as having a board composed of people who were not all police people.

That was a kind of a first, really, in terms of writing it into

legislation. Unfortunately, what has happened with CLEU is that the

board membership has reverted back to only people who are policemen. It

is important to have a non-police perspective.

In the same

way, and connected with this particular section, it would be a good

move on the part of the government to say in the act — if you designate

not more than five members to the advisory board — that at least one of

them should be a person who is not connected with nor has ever been

connected with a security firm; in other words, a consumer who has a

consumer's point of view only and not a corporate point of view or, if

you like, a professional point of view. That is the purpose of the

amendment, which I move.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that the Attorney-General is taking some

time to consider it, and we hope he is prepared to do so favourably. I

am glad to see the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and Mr. Roger there

as well.

It is an amendment of some principle and some

import. Basically it would require a level of public participation in

the establishment of the code of ethics referred to in the bill, in the

establishment of the new attitude and atmosphere that will be created

by the passage of a bill which, as we have already indicated, will have

the unanimous consent of the Legislature. The opposition doesn't always

support government bills, but we certainly do on this occasion.

Our

own Attorney-General, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), having commissioned the original report and the current

Attorney-General having acted upon it, agree together — as we try to

represent through this amendment today — that one of the important

things in

[ Page 3690 ]

the

public policy interest regarding private police forces, industrial

security and the rest of it is the notion that the public will be

represented at every level. The purpose of our amendment, which we hope

passes, is to establish a uniquely public role for persons not directly

or intimately involved with the industry in the setting of the

standards, that code of ethics and the proper public expectation for

the industry itself.

My colleague from

Maillardville-Coquitlam has put forward in language which we hope the

government will find acceptable, in language which is very simple and

straightforward, a commitment of principle. That commitment is this: it

is in the interests of the good public administration of the policy

that we see in this bill that the public be directly and personally

represented in the councils of the private security industry of British

Columbia. That's what my colleague hopes to achieve here. That's what

we hope the government will accept.

It strikes us that it is

in the best interest of the bill itself and of the people in this

Legislature who will support it unanimously — that the public of

British Columbia have confidence in its administration and execution.

The commission, which this particular

section 25 will establish, is one

of the principal instruments whereby the good intentions of the bill

are to be executed.

Again I refer to the fact that the

commission named in this section, which we will support, has the

authority and the mandate to establish a code of ethics for the private

police and security industry in British Columbia. That's an important

thing. Surely it's just as important that the people of British

Columbia who are served by this industry have some direct and personal

representation and say in the councils of those who will establish the

code of ethics. After all, the code doesn't simply act as a

self-governing mechanism for the industry; it should surely also act as

the best statement of the public interest in the way that the industry

conducts itself. That's important.

Do I see a signal from the government House Leader to conclude these remarks? Garde, yes, no?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm happy to fill a bit of air time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps a bit of formality still might be maintained, hon. members. The hon. member for Victoria still has the floor.

MR. BARBER:

And concludes his possession of it by strongly endorsing the amendment

put forward by my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam as thoughtful

and helpful.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My colleague the

Attorney-General is prepared to agree to the amendment, but I would

really like to make a suggestion to the hon. member who is proposing

the amendment and to all members of the opposition and of government.

If you're proposing amendments to statute it is far better, much more

appropriate, desirable, effective, efficient and all of those other

kind of things, to please get them on the order paper so they may be

considered by legislative draftsmen, legislative counsel and the

Ministry of the Attorney-General to determine their appropriateness

from not only a conceptual point of view, but from a point of view of

precision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be too much to ask for the Chair to have the amendment? [Laughter]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

We'd be happy to give you the amendment. I second what has been said by

my colleague the House Leader. As I indicated in second reading, I

thought it was eminently desirable that this advisory board contain a

person who is not associated with the business, in order that we might

assist in the work of that advisory board. I've had the opportunity of

speaking with legislative counsel, and if the member would like to

follow the section, we've made one very slight modification in his

motion which I'd like him to adopt, if he will. It's an amendment to

section 25, line 3. The words in his motion are "by inserting after

'including' the following words: 'one member who is not connected with

or has been a member of a security business.'" It then continues:

"...the registrar, who shall act as chairman." I'm delighted to accept

the amendment.

In line with the matters discussed during

second reading it's clear that this is a new approach for the first

time in this province. It may require further regulation of this

industry in the future, and I think it eminently advisable if the

Attorney-General could have all the qualified and competent advice that

he can get — in no other cases, however, except this. So with that I'm

happy to indicate that I support this amendment. I trust that, unless

there are further amendments, the member would be prepared to grant

leave that we proceed to third reading today.

Amendment approved.

section 25 as amended.

MR. BARBER:

I'd like to congratulate the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Levi) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) for passing the

amendment which now comprises the bulk of

section 25. It's a good sign

for this Legislature and I'm glad that's happened.

When I

spoke on second reading I didn't have at hand a really unpleasant

advertisement which I wish to draw to the Attorney-General's attention.

When I spoke on second reading in regard to the necessity for a code of

ethics which, self-governingly, will help the private police and

security industry to earn a little more of the respect of the people, I

talked about — and I recall him agreeing with — the notion that

sometimes these companies engage in, to say the least, very

high-pressure tactics to somewhat misleadingly direct the fears and the

phobias that a lot of people, especially seniors, have. I didn't have

at hand, but I do now, an advertisement from a company called Island

Crime Watch Inc, crime prevention services, 383-3322, published in my

riding. I don't have the date at hand either; I'll get it from the

research office. Not only does it quote from the advertisements of

McDonalds' — above a picture of a gentleman and an elderly lady the

little phrase: "we do it all for you" appears — but it also manages to

glom onto, in a completely misleading way, some of the latest jargon of

the authentic police community in British Columbia. Underneath the

picture of the gentleman and the elderly lady we're informed that "team

policing really works." I resent the way in which this company has

misappropriated the language and the ideas of the legitimate policing

interests of British Columbia for its own commercial purposes, and I

resent as well some of the

[ Page 3691 ]

language in this text, which if I have permission later on, I will table.

The

text of the advertisement reads: "Inspector Garry Baker" — what he's an

inspector of, I don't know, but the clear implication is that he is

some kind of police inspector — "head of our community relations

department, presents Miss Harriet Gibson with a lifetime membership to

Island Crime Watch." It doesn't say what a lifetime membership means,

either. "Miss Gibson has been a team supporter" — again the way in

which that phrase is used and misused — "of Western Home Guard for the

past 18 years and has never had a break-in. This is our way of saying

'thank you.' Business and home teams are winning." And then you see a

picture of a criminal with a black mask and a heavy hat and his collar

up, and underneath it says: "Security." And then in big type: "Security

is a comfort to pensioners. Patrols are available for assistance. Don't

leave your home without us." Then it repeats the phone number.

think this is an advertisement which describes the worst — at least in

print — of the things that can go wrong with an over-aggressive company

attempting to oversell its product and attempting to, I think, misstate

the nature of its actual role in the community. To describe what they

do as "team policing" is to describe a false thing; that's absurd,

that's got nothing to do with the currently acceptable

definitions of

"team policing," especially as has been pioneered to the great credit

of Chief Constable Winterton and the police of Vancouver, and recently

now to the Chief Constable of the city of Victoria, Mr. Snowdon.

describe Mr. Garry Baker, who is the head of their community relations

department, as an inspector is, I think, also to give a very false

connotation to the actual role and traditional meaning of the word

"inspector" in terms of policing. As well, to tell us that a Miss

Gibson has been a team supporter for 18 years — whatever that means —

and has never had a break-in is, once again, in a really misleading

way, to paint a case for this company, its alleged product and its

alleged role in the community, under whatever name they're using —

Western Home Guard, Island Crime Watch or some other name in the past,

I presume.

This is the kind of material which I hope the

Attorney-General will be prepared to draw to the attention of the board

that is established under this amended section. I hope he might agree

with us that this kind of advertisement is the sort of thing that

correctly does embarrass the industry, should not really be encouraged

and should, in fact, with a code of ethics, not be seen much in the

future.

I resent the ad. It exploits the fears and phobias

of older people. I resent the use of terms,

definitions and language in

the ad, which clearly misrepresent the actual role of the company. As

well, I resent the fact that this kind of overstatement of the

company's case does great harm to the genuine abilities and genuine

interests of the legitimate sections of the private policing and

security industries in the province. This kind of advertising does

their image a lot of harm and, for the sake of the industry as well as

for the people in my riding and in other ridings who might feel a bit

exploited and misinformed by this ad, I hope it doesn't occur again. In

this way, I wanted to draw it to the attention of the Attorney-General.

MR. LEVI:

I just want to thank the Attorney-General for accepting the amendment

and point out that on this very quiet Friday morning something

dramatic, in my opinion, has taken place, in that for the first time

there will be a consumer representative on an advisory board. It's

probably the first time. I know some years ago there was an attempt to

get lay people on the stock exchange board, and I'm not sure if that

has been as successful as it should have been. But in this one, this is

the first time. Very often we hear from consumers' associations who are

attempting to have consumer representation. Well, what we've got here,

in fact, is the beginning of that. While I don't want to specifically

refer to another piece of legislation or a bill that's before the House

as a private member's bill, it is a beginning.

Non-professionals

are going to have an opportunity we're not just talking about lawyers

and doctors; I'm sure the security people see themselves as

professionals in their field — to have an interested lay person who can

give the all-important public point of view. I must congratulate the

Attorney-General. It's a very good first in this province.

Section 25 as amended approved.

section 26.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I would like to refer to the comments by the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber), and draw to his attention that the regulation-making

power vests in me the authority to make regulations respecting

advertising by security businesses. I would also point out to him that,

as he well knows,

section 22 of the bill provides that: "No person

engaged in a security business shall, to describe or identify his

business or services, use the words 'detective,' 'law enforcement

officer,' 'peace officer' or 'police,' either alone or in conjunction

with their words." The member might be interested to know that, while

this is a proclamation bill, it is my intention, following shortly

after royal assent, to proclaim the provision which will establish the

registrar and the regulation provisions.

The advertisement

which he has provided me is one of a number of similar examples which

are not perhaps what you would call misleading advertising, but they

are so close to that, and so likely to carry the implication that

someone is an inspector, that they could lead unsuspecting persons to

believe the services offered were of a quality which they might

otherwise question. We would be willing to look at it with care. We

don't want to interfere with one's right to advertise. We certainly

don't want to impose any unnecessary regulations upon the many people

who show great responsibility in this business, but we want to ensure

that the whole standard of the security business is elevated.

MR. MITCHELL:

I'd like to make a comment on the particular subsection on guard dogs.

I would sincerely ask the minister to make a study of the Vancouver

police dog training school and the type of dog training that is given

to the dogs they have in their school. What the dog is actually being

used for in the security business is a gimmick, but a dog can be like a

loaded rifle. If it's not trained properly, in the hands of an

untrained person it can be a dangerous weapon. When the Vancouver

police started their dog-training school, they started off with guard

dogs or attack dogs. An attack dog is a dangerous weapon. They have

since then changed their style of training. The dogs that they have

trained are basically dogs that search and seek — dogs that will find

someone in a building, no matter if it's a kid playing in a warehouse

or a criminal. The dog is not trained to attack that person, but only

to find him, seek him out and draw attention to him.

[ Page 3692 ]

feel that any regulations that are designed for a civilian group should

be based on the idea that you are training a dog to be an assistant —

and extra eye and ear — but not to replace a gun or a club. That dog

should be trained only to seek, search and locate people, and not ever

be allowed to become a weapon to attack. I think it's really important

in training dogs and setting up regulations that they go to the police

academy in Vancouver, where they have an excellent dog-training school

and an excellent record. They made mistakes when they started off and

they're the first to admit it. That's why they changed their type of

training. I'd ask the minister to take it under consideration when

drawing up the regulations.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Very

briefly, Mr. Chairman, the question of the use of dogs is very properly

raised by the member. He will note that there is a provision in this

bill which prevents anyone who's licensed from carrying a firearm. I

wish to assure him that I'm aware of the valuable work that is done by

the Vancouver City Police Department in this respect. We don't want

people who are in the security business being armed in any way, whether

with a weapon in the normal sense of the word or with an animal whose

training may not have been as carefully monitored as it should have

been. Search and seek is what they're supposed to do, and I thank the

member for his concerns. We will be relying heavily upon organizations

such as the Vancouver City Police Dog Squad for their advice in matters

of this kind.

MR. LEVI: Under subsection (4), I would

like to ask the Attorney-General.... It says: "...may, for the purposes

of this act, designate persons, who need not be public servants, as

inspectors." What does he have in mind there? Is this to inspect the

various agencies? Who would he actually hire? If you're looking at the

industry itself — unless you're looking at the financial side and not

so much the actual operation.... Who do you really have in mind there?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

We see that there may be the need on some occasions, when you consider

the powers of inspectors, to use members of some of our police forces

in the course of the kind of work that we may require to be carried out

in assisting the registrar.

MR. LEVI: The

section says: "...who need not be public servants." Policemen are, presumably, public servants in that sense.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, I see, he's seeing it only in the provincial sense.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We are very strictly bound by the provisions of the

Interpretation Act, and that's why we had to use this method, Mr. Member.

Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 38, Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 38, Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

BUSINESS LICENCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. MITCHELL: Well....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Frank, I know what you're going to say. Why don't you do it in 11?

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I think I goofed. You might rule me out of order about

now. I wanted to bring in an amendment to

section 2 actually and it

slipped by me before I got to it. It was my mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be out of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, I know we can't go back to a

section which has

been approved, but perhaps the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew could

make his point under

section 11, because it's a proclamation. I could

respond at that time.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

MR. MITCHELL:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. The issue I wanted to bring

up which slipped right by me, concerned a permit given by the

provincial government in an unorganized area that is covered by the

regional board and where they have had many zoning bylaws that have

come in over the last few years under their community planning. Permits

are given to people to conduct a business in an area that is not zoned

for that particular business. It causes a lot of turmoil among the

operators of the businesses, the community and the enforcement officers

of the regional district.

[ Page 3693 ]

was hoping that the minister would bring in an amendment to the bill

that would cover this particular

section that would at least have the

particular officers who are issuing permits check with the various

organized regional districts and their zoning bylaw officers to make

sure that any permit given at least conforms with the area that is

zoned for that particular business, or that the officers themselves are

aware of the possibility of any conflict later on.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Thank you for your latitude, Mr. Chairman. I realize that the member

made that point on July 29 in second reading. I have researched it

since that time. The question of issuing a licence in conformity with

zoning in a non-municipal area is a matter which the ministry can and —

I undertake now before the committee — will handle administratively. It

doesn't need an amendment. We can simply instruct those who are

responsible for the issuance of licences that in the administrative

process they determine the zoning which is in effect for the business

which is proposed to be licensed. I give that undertaking to the

committee.

MR. MITCHELL: On behalf of the many people

in my regional district and my area who have asked for this, I thank

the minister for that assurance.

Section 11 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 42, Business Licence Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 41.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 41, Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 41, Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

41 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 41) intituled Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act. 1980 , to amend as follows:

Section 9 (2): By deleting "Section 3 (a) (

i) and and (ii)" and substituting

"Section 3 (a) (ii) and (iii)".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada