1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2689 ]

CONTENTS

Legal Services Commission Act (Bill 96). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction

and first reading — 2689

Coroners Act (Bill 87). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading

— 2689

Hospital Amendment Act (Bill 91). Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading

— 2689

Oral Questions

Publication of NDP pamphlet. Mr. Bennett — 2689

Supplementary grants to school districts. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2690

Conflict-of-interest complaints. Mr. Wallace — 2690

Review of grazing lease. Mrs. Jordan — 2691

Confidentiality of tax information. Mr. Phillips — 2691

Title of Minister Without Portfolio. Mr. Fraser — 2691

Hard-rock drilling decline. Mr. Gibson — 2691

Serpentine-Nicomekl flood control studies. Mr. McClelland — 2692

Advertisement for legal officer. Mr. Curtis — 2692

Protection of floor during east wing renovation. Mrs. Jordan — 2692

Privilege Leave to televise question period. Mr. Speaker — 2692

Routine proceedings

Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 24). Committee,

report and third reading — 2693

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment

Act, 1975 (Bill 25). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Richter — 2694

Report and third reading — 2705

Fisheries Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 70). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Radford —

Personal Information Reporting Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 79). Second reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 2707

Credit Unions Act (Bill 82). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald —

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates On vote

28. Mr. Gibson — 2711

On vote 29. Mr. McClelland — 2722

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Monsieur

l'Orateur, je suis enchanté à offrir un bienvenu très chaud à

nos bons amis de France, Monsieur Jean Trocmé, the commercial

counsellor at Ottawa, Monsieur Louis-Jean L'Helias, the

French trade commissioner, and our good friend Monsieur

Galabru, who is the French consul-general in

Vancouver.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Monsieur le Président,

pour le parti officiel d'opposition ça me fait beaucoup de

plaisir aussi d'avoir l'occasion cet après-midi de vous

souhaiter bienvenu à notre assemblée.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

I was not in the House at its opening this morning. I do not

know if it was noted, but I think I can speak for the women

Members of the assembly to welcome and to express our delight

in seeing Mrs. Evelyn Miller as a Clerk of this House. This is

a first.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, I would draw the attention of the House to the

presence in the gallery today of 35 students now and

35 at 3 o'clock from Hansworth School in

North Vancouver, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Peterson. I

ask the House to make them welcome.

M R. C. S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I would

like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of senior citizens from

North Vancouver who are seated in the Members' gallery this afternoon.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from

the Kengard School in the Nicola Valley at Merritt. I think we

owe them a fair debt of gratitude, after the dull weather we

had yesterday, to see this fine Nicola Valley sunshine they

brought with them.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery

today are Mr. and Mrs. Gooden from Salmon Arm. Mr. Gooden is

the secretary-treasurer of the Shuswap School District.

I would like the House to welcome them to Victoria.

Introduction of bills.

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legal Services

Commission Act.

Bill 96 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.

CORONERS ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 87,

Coroners Act, 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.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hospital Amendment

Act, 1975.

Bill 91 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.

Oral questions.

PUBLICATION OF NDP PAMPHLET

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Premier and Minister of Finance. I have in my hand a very

glossy pamphlet entitled, "The New Financial Institution in

British Columbia Designed to Serve The Needs Of People." I

would like the Minister to inform the House as to what vote the

pamphlet, published by the Queen's Printer, was passed under,

and why it was distributed to the NDP convention before it was

distributed to this House.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The second part of the statement

is incorrect. It was not distributed at the NDP convention.

MR. BENNETT: This was got at the NDP convention.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now get your facts straight. It was not

distributed to the NDP convention.

MR. BENNETT: Was it available?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was not distributed at the NDP

convention.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2690 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're getting yourself

into another chicken-and-egg war.

MR. BENNETT: Was it available there?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't change your questions in

mid-ditch. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it was done by the

Queen's Printer, and I imagine the charges will be to the

finance department.

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplementary, then. Would the Minister

advise whether it is now the practice of the government that

the costs of producing these pamphlets based on proposed

legislation, which has not been approved or debated by this

House, are to be placed on the shoulders of our taxpayers

before it has been debated or discussed in the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows, the B.C.

Central Credit Union is a proposed partner in the operation of

the proposed legislation, and the material is prepared

essentially for that information. If the Member is not in

appreciation of the government's imaginative moves in the

finance field, then let him vote against the legislation.

MR. BENNETT: No, it's the way you misuse the

advertising.

SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS

TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Education:

subsequent to questions, some of which she answered and some

she took on notice, may I ask the Minister whether she could

file with House the criteria whereby her department established

the size of the supplementary grants given to school districts

this year? It would be useful to know, for example, why Surrey,

with a school enrolment of 30,000, received a supplementary

grant of $2.2 million, when Vancouver with a school enrolment

of 70,000 received less than half that.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Yes, I'll be

prepared to prepare that for you. It's complicated, but we'll

see if we can prepare it in a form. You would like to have a

copy of it.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMPLAINTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question

of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with regard to his statement that he is

considering legislation which would ban lawyers, real estate salesmen and assessors

from running for public office at the municipal level. In view of his statement

that nine out of 10 complaints about possible conflicts of interest received

in his office are false, could I ask the Minister: in the past year how many

such complaints have been received, and of the complaints found to have substance,

how many have been the subject of further action by the Minister?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): First of

all, I didn't suggest that I would be banning lawyers or

assessors especially from sitting on councils. What I did

suggest was that if you were to ban real estate agents or

people who are dealing in land, directly or indirectly, then

you are also, if you carry that a little further, dealing with

lawyers and the rest of the group who are on the periphery of

that whole picture.

In regard to your second question about the number of

complaints that I receive and the number that are valid, it is

quite true that there are very few where, under the laws that

exist today, any actual wrongdoing has been done. What I'm

suggesting is that from a number of the complaints that I do

receive, certainly from a moral point of view, I suppose you

might say, wrongdoing may be being done or appears to be done.

I'm suggesting that legislation will have to be changed to take

care of the conflict of interest that does exist in this

province, which is permitted through the Municipal Act at the

present time.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

It's interesting that the word "moral" should creep in,

since the Premier chastised me the other day for suggesting

that the government should ever take a position on the morality

in our community.

Anyway, has the Minister, on the matter of advertising your

budget in the Georgia Straight — don't pretend you've

forgotten — discussed this important issue with UBCM in

order to seek some alternative way of approaching the

difficulty other than taking this very drastic route of

suggesting that certain selected people in society might not be

able to run for municipal office?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have taken it up with UBCM last fall at

their annual meeting and in the previous year at their annual

meeting, asking for their suggestions as to what might or could

be done to resolve the problem. UBCM is in agreement with me

that the problem does exist, but they haven't produced an

answer. It's not an easy answer to come up with, and that's why

action wasn't taken two years ago, to be quite frank. There has

to be action brought about very shortly in regard to this

matter.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): It is on the same

general subject, Mr. Speaker, with your

[ Page 2691 ]

permission, to the Minister of Education.

Is the Minister giving any consideration whatever to

introducing similar restrictions as far as school boards are

concerned in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, not at this time. However, we do

find it practical to keep our changes correlated fairly well

with Municipal Affairs. On this particular one I would have to

take that as notice. No decision has been made.

REVIEW OF GRAZING LEASE

MRS. JORDON: My question is to the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources and it's with regard to lot 106 in

the Oliver area in Myers Flat district — a grazing lease,

the Minister will recall, which belongs to a viable unit and a

family ranch — which he had out for tender and which we

asked him to withdraw; and he has agreed. Now that the land is

withdrawn from public tender and subject to review, would the

Minister advise the House: (

a) Who will be directing the

review? (

b) What departments will be consulted? (

c) Has the

family been notified that this land is not out for tender at

this time and is subject to review?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Any land that is on a year-to-year tenure — it's clearly that, Mr. Speaker

— is not a commitment in perpetuity, as the Hon. Member might suggest. The matter

is being looked at with outside advice and departmental staff. It may well be

that portions of land might be used differently than other portions.

MRS. JORDAN: In view of the fact that this land has been

properly managed by the family involved for many years and

there is, to my knowledge, no criticism on record from the

grazing department or the agricultural department or their use,

would the Minister give the House a commitment that when the

correct usage of this land is decided by his authorities that

family will have first opportunity to bid on leasing this

land?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would have thought that

so-called free-enterprisers would believe in

competition.

MRS. JORDON: Would the Minister just answer the question and

keep his bogeyman socialism out of people's affairs? This is a

family agricultural unit, and your hang-up on socialism is

destroying it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX INFORMATION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct my

question to the Minister of Finance. Are there any special

precautions taken to keep confidential information which is

filed both with the capital tax employment act and the Logging

Tax Act confidential? How is it distributed? Do the civil

servants handling this information take any special oath to do

with the capital tax employment Act and the Logging Tax Act? I

have reason to believe that some of this confidential

information is not being treated with the confidentiality that

it should be. I'd just like the Minister of Finance to inform

the House what is....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Member, and

give you an answer.

TITLE OF

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): There's a question to the Premier

as president of the executive council. Can he advise the House

what authority the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr.

Nunweiler) still has, apparently, to issue press releases

saying the following: "Alf Nunweiler, Minister for Northern

Affairs said today..." — and it goes on. In other

words, he calls himself the "Minister of Northern Affairs," and I'd like to know on what authority can he use this

title.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, if you'll pass it over

to me I'll take it as notice.

HARD-ROCK DRILLING DECLINE

MR. GIBSON: I have a question to ask the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources. Is the Minister aware that there's

been a drop of 99 per cent in exploratory drilling in British

Columbia in the first quarter, year over year?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, no! For minerals, Mr. Minister, for

hard-rock mineral in the first quarter...throwing many

people out of work, when it's been going up in the rest of

Canada. Would the Minister agree that this might have some

slight connection with government policy?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): In the

first place I've got no knowledge of your figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 2692 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can send that over to me. In the

second place, if it is true, I don't think it's government

policy that's causing it.

MR. GIBSON: Just for the Minister's information, Mr.

Speaker, it's an official report of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber

of Mines, but I'll send him a copy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary. May I ask the Minister

whether he'll take steps to check with his staff as to why

they're not bringing forward to his attention reports of the

B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, as well as the daily

press?

MR. PHILLIPS: They don't want him to know what a bad job

he's doing.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I spend so much time in the House trying

to keep up with the rest of you fellows that I haven't got time

to even talk to my staff. (Laughter.)

SERPENTINE-NICOMEKL

FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I wonder if

the Minister could advise the House when the Environment and

Land Use Committee or the Land Commission, or both, might act

on a request from the Municipality of Surrey and the diking

commission there to have a special study done for drainage and

flood-control programmes in the Serpentine-Nicomekl

area?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, there have been numerous studies

in the Serpentine-Nicomekl, and these have been underway

over the last couple of years, so the Member would have to

clarify his question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, since the last study turned

down any possibility of cost sharing, the municipality asked

the Land Commission if it would do a special study. The

Environment and Land Use Committee has apparently stepped in

alongside of the Land Commission, and has agreed to do a new

study with the view of getting something done to protect that

farmland from ruination.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As the Member is no doubt aware, there

are federal formulas with respect to diking arrangements.

MR. McCLELLAND: But that's been turned down.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Under those formulas, the Serpentine-Nicomekl

would not have qualified, so the group is looking at the prospects of a modified

capital cost arrangement which would meet within the formula. There's no report

yet.

ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL OFFICER

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Attorney-General.

Some weeks ago I asked the Minister if he would investigate an

advertisement which had appeared for his department concerning

a legal officer. That was competition No. 75-1290,

seeking a qualified person with recognized Bachelor of Laws

degree and preferably one year's experience in criminal law.

The salary seemed inordinately high — $24,290 to $30,900.

The Minister undertook to check into it. To my knowledge

— I don't believe I've missed any question periods

— he has not done so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the answer

with me today. I'll get that.

PROTECTION OF FLOOR

DURING EAST WING RENOVATION

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Public

Works regarding the historical and very valuable tiled floor in

the east wing of this building which is being renovated: could

the Minister advise the House why proper care and attention

have not been adhered to to protect this flooring during this

period of renovation? I've been in on several occasions. There

are a few four-by-eight sheets lying around. In the

main, this floor is being subject to falling plaster being

grated into the flooring from workmen's boots, scaffolding,

ladders and every other form of abuse. Would the Minister

please advise why this abuse has taken place, and what he's

prepared to do about it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a socialist plot.

HON. MR. HARTLEY : Mr. Speaker, could I make a similar

speech in reply?

MRS. JORDAN: Just make a reply for a change.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You know, for 20 years this building fell

down about your ears. There was plastic up in the attic,

windows boarded up, plastic over the skylights — and she

asks a question like that. Certainly it's being looked

after!

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that was the bell. (Laughter.)

Before we proceed, I wanted to know the opinion

[ Page 2693 ]

of the House: whether there's unanimous leave to have any

television before any legislative changes are made.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry, I'd better give it in detail

— some Members were not here this morning. The request

was made by BCTV to tape a portion of the proceedings of the

House tomorrow. I intimated to them that I would have to obtain

the unanimous leave of the House in view of the fact that we

have a report that indicates some misgivings about broadcasting

publicly by this method without thereby having problems under

the Bill of Rights. Therefore the question is: is there

unanimous leave to permit any broadcasting until the rules are

changed? Shall leave be granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: What portion is it?

MR. SPEAKER: I think they wanted the question period

tomorrow. But if I hear any dissent at this time, I'm certainly

not going to let them proceed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of

clarification, presumably it's not just for BCTV, but for both

networks or any other...?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately they were the only ones who

requested that privilege. As I said, it means the lights are on

for 15 minutes. It means that every Member has to be concerned

about what he says in this House, and the effect of it

legally.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: All right. I think I should warn you, in view

of the misgivings shown by several Members the other day about

the release of tapes from Hansard ; so I think one should

make a considered judgment on it. If you want to wait until 6

o'clock to think about it further....

I hear some noes from over here.

MR. WALLACE: Just on a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker,

you mentioned any segment of the proceedings to be televised by

BCTV, and that no one else had asked. What happens if we give

permission to BCTV and tomorrow or next week...? Is it to be

a very arbitrary thing where the House is asked each time for

leave or not?

MR. SPEAKER: I think what they were doing was asking for

leave as an experiment to see whether they could film it with

the equipment they have. So it was in the nature of an

experiment.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, even

though it would be a decided advantage for government to have

this happen, I think that it is too sketchy for us to make any

decision on. But it would be to our advantage, obviously.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think what is really needed is a

committee again to sit on the question of whether it can work,

and also to make recommendations with regard now to the report

received which was tabled in this House by Dr. McWhinney on the

whole subject of parliamentary immunity and broadcasting. But

if I hear any noes — and I seem to hear several — I

will certainly not advise them that consent has been given. Is

there unanimous consent?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there isn't. So I will have to advise them.

In the meantime, I hope somebody will take the initiative and

do something about the whole problem.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 24.

SUCCESSION DUTY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. D. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move

that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 2694 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 25.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY

(1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman,

through you to the Minister of Finance and Premier, fiscal

agent for B.C. Hydro, as I understand from the earlier debate,

the amount in this bill has already been committed for projects

that have already been finalized. I would assume from that,

then, that a portion of this money would be applicable to the

500-kVline to run from Nicola to the Kootenays.

Now my question is this. The shortest distance between two

points would be a straight line. The proposed route of this

line will run from the northwest corner of my constituency to

the southeast corner, which is anything but a straight line,

and through a considerable amount of improved property.

I know it is difficult sometimes to keep these high-tension

lines on Crown land and not interfere with private land, and I

also realize, if the government is attempting to establish a

utility corridor, that you can't establish a number of utility

corridors, and that West Kootenay Power and Light presently do

have a line running between Oliver and Bonnington Falls.

My question is: will the land use commission and the

environment and land use secretariat have any jurisdiction in

designating where this particular high voltage line will be

located? Also, many people who own small properties are going

to find a high-tension line crossing their property,

which will not be to their advantage, and I am getting a

considerable number of complaints from my constituents in

regard to this matter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am advised that the

Environment and Land Use Committee does review these. I would

suggest that if you are getting complaints, you direct them to

the committee. The Minister on the committee also serves on the

Hydro board — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). The Minister has advised me

that he will check and see what status this project is with the

committee.

MR. RICHTER: Just a short response to that. I have already

done this, Mr. Premier. I'm happy I was on the right track.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, during

the course of an earlier debate we discussed the proposed prospectus for a $125

million borrowing by B.C. Hydro. I understand that the amount of the borrowing

has been increased to $150 million and that the sale of those bonds is to be

announced this week.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's already sold.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Already sold. Could the Minister advise

the rate of interest on those bonds?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nine and five-eights.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to inquire

of the Minister where we're going ahead and putting Hydro

projects for which this borrowing is to pay.... I'd like to

know what the government's attitude is towards hiring policies

on these projects. I've had several complaints in my riding

that local residents are unable to obtain jobs in the area,

even when these residents are qualified. So I contacted in this

particular project on Site 1 the prime contractor, which is

Dillingham Corp. The prime contractor said: "Yes, we're most

happy to hire local people. As a matter of fact, we would

rather hire local people because then we're not faced with

housing transients when they come into the area and work. But

we have a union contract. When we put out a call for an

individual, we have to hire whomever the union gives us."

The union has a waiting list; we'll say it's for engineers.

If the union has engineers who are waiting for a job,

regardless of whether they live on Vancouver Island or Kelsey

Bay or Cranbrook, these people have to be brought into the

area. The policy of Hydro, I understand, written in the

contract with Dillingham, is to ask the prime contractor to

hire local people where possible, where they're qualified; it's

part of the procedure. But we run into the union problem where

the union wants to bring in people from outside.

I'd like to know what the policy of government is. Who's

running the show? Who's going to get preference — local

people or people from outside?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, before we became the

government this was a chronic problem in projects related to

Hydro and other Crown corporation construction. So when this

government came to office, we passed the Public Works Fair

Employment Act. It was the first time in history that this

province allowed the Crown corporations, when directly involved

in construction, to hire local people. This was never permitted

under the existing union-Crown corporation contracts

before. It was this government that opened it up to allow local

people to be employed; that's a matter of record. I think,

Mr.

[ Page 2695 ]

Member, you might have voted against that Act.

Secondly, the question of contracts between the Crown

corporation and a private contractor and then their

arrangements with their union contracts is a matter that the

government will not interfere with and could not interfere

with. Once the bid for a contract is out, that contractual

relationship between the union and the contractor is a matter

for them to negotiate.

I want to thank the Member for giving me the opportunity of

pointing out to the people of this province that the first

break on this impasse came through the Public Works Fair

Employment Act introduced by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King).

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't wish to belabour this point....

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I didn't think you would.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly resent, as usual, the Minister of

Finance trying to twist the situation around. I would like to

inform him that the contract which was signed between B.C.

Hydro and not one contractor but all of the contractors on the

Peace River power dam, a project that lasted for some 10 years,

never had one minute of labour problems because it was a first

for the previous administration — the best contract. It

is one that has been followed on the Mica project — the

greatest legislation, the greatest and hugest labour contract

and the greatest project ever taken on before in the history of

British Columbia, a project which was engineered by Hydro under

the previous administration.

I want to say that it had a devil of a lot better record of

having no strikes than anything this government has engineered

or tried to engineer. The Premier gets up and tries to twist

the situation all around. They brought in the Public Works Fair

Employment Act and then the next year they changed it because

we told them when they brought in that legislation that it was

unworkable legislation. Next year they backtracked again as

usual and did exactly what we suggested they do when they

brought the labour legislation in. But, oh, the Premier has got

to get up and twist everything all around.

I asked a simple question, a question which concerns

constituents in my riding. I wanted a straightforward answer,

but the Premier had to get up and try and twist it all around

and make cheap political hay out of a very touchy situation,

which is labour in this province.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the sooner that Premier and that Minister of Labour

take cheap politics out of the labour situation, the better off British Columbia

will be! You are trying to polarize labour against management. You've worked

it time and time again in this province since you became government. The people

in this province are getting sick and tired.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Could you speak up a

bit? We can't hear you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Back to my original question. We have got to

find out which contract is going to take precedence. In the

contract that B.C. Hydro has with Dillingham Corp., which is

the prime contractor, it is written in the contract that the

prime contractor shall hire local people where feasible and

possible. Dillingham would like to hire local people. Which

contract has the precedence — the contract that B.C.

Hydro has with Dillingham saying that you shall hire local

people, or the union contract? That's all I want to know. Local

people want these jobs. I don't want you to get up and be

political.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want you to give me a sincere, honest

answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'll give you the answer, then.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are supposed to be the man concerned with

little people. These are little people who work in that area,

who are available to do that job. They live there and in many

cases will do a better job than some single person coming in

from outside, living in barracks, as it were. These people are

not being given the opportunity to work on this project in

their own area. I want to know what your stand is on it.

I don't just have one complaint. Do you want me to read you

the letters? I don't want to take up the time of the House to

read you the letters.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll give you the answers.

MR. PHILLIPS: But I do want an answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, as I....

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't be political!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhh! You tell me not to be political

after all that political claptrap about the former government

having labour peace and never polarizing management against

labour! Mr. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't get political!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I shouldn't get

[ Page 2696 ]

political but it is all right for you to be political.

MR. PHILLIPS: You started it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I started it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I asked a simple, sincere question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I gave you the simple answer: prior to the

passing of the Public Works Fair Employment Act, no Crown

corporation had the right....

You don't like it. You don't like the answer. I can't change

the facts. If you don't like the answer, there is nothing I can

do for you.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not giving me the answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not giving you the answer you want.

I'm giving you facts.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are not giving me any answer. The Public

Works Fair Employment Act has absolutely nothing to do with

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River...?

MR. PHILLIPS: Nothing at all!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for South

Peace River wait for his turn again, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the facts are that if the

contractor has a contract with the union — that is, an

agreement between the contractor and the union which permits

the union to do the hiring — there is nothing that we can

do about that contract between a private employer and the

union. Okay?

Now if that is the contract that the employer has signed

between the unions and himself, that is a matter between those

two parties. Beyond that, Mr. Member, there was no provision in

the original contracts on Mica, which called for no strike on

Mica for a 10-year period, to include the hiring of local

help. One of the conditions of getting the 10-year,

no-strike contract was an absolute, by the former

government to the unions, that the hiring would be done by the

unions. That's a fact. Two answers for you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to tell the Premier that he has

been ill-advised by the Minister of Labour that the

Public Works Fair Employment Act has absolutely nothing to do

with this situation.

The Premier again has tried to twist the situation around. What I am asking

is what has precedence: the contract that Hydro has with the prime contractor

or the contractor's contract with the union. Now which is it? Hydro says that

Dillingham Corp., in this case, shall hire local people. Certainly the union

could hire local people. In some instances, they might have to sell them memberships.

We are talking about the operating engineers at the present time.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it wouldn't be the IWA. It would be the

operating engineers, because it is driving Caterpillars and

wheel vehicles, et cetera.

Mr. Minister of Finance, all I want to know is which is the

precedent: the contract that Hydro has with the contractor or

the other one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you please send over the two

contracts and we'll have the Labour department rule on it? I

can't give you an answer without knowing....

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't have a contract.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, please get the exact information

before we can give you.... Who is it between? What project?

What construction company? We need that information to give

this to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I told you. It's between British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority and Dillingham Corp.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's the project number?

MR. PHILLIPS: The project is getting ready for clearing the

area for Site 1, clearing the trees, building the roads,

getting ready to set up the camp; it's the No. 1 project. I'll

find out the number of the project if you want me to; I'll get

you the number of the project.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Get the information and we'll give you an

answer.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): The

present question is whether this House should authorize $750

million worth of increased borrowing authority by B.C. Hydro.

The principle is one that goes well beyond that. B.C. Hydro

will be, according to its most recent prospectus, spending $3.3

billion in capital expenditures over the next two years. One of

the greatest difficulties this House has in judging that kind

of thing is in assessing the long-range plans of an

enormous corporation like B.C. Hydro which has the benefit of

all kinds of internal staff studies and all kinds of

information that we do not have. One of the

[ Page 2697 ]

finest things that this government has done in another area

is to put another aspect of the energy field, mainly natural

gas and the Crown corporation in that field, under the review

of the B.C. Energy Commission.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has already canvassed this particular

argument. We had a lengthy debate about it in the House. I

think you may have been absent.

MR. GIBSON: No, I am aware that it was canvassed. I wasn't

100 per cent satisfied with the answer at that time, Mr.

Premier. I want to put the argument to you once more and

suggest to you that this House in dealing with these kinds of

enormous sums of money down the distant future has to have the

benefit of impartial, independent advice with hearings held out

in the open and not decisions made in the secrecy of the board

rooms of B.C. Hydro, which is an impenetrable screen beyond

which this Legislature cannot get. So I ask the Premier once

again, through you, Mr. Chairman, to at least consider and to

tell this House he will consider putting B.C. Hydro under the

overview of the B.C. Energy Commission.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: "What else is the energy commission for?" as the

Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) says.

In his remarks a few days ago while still on committee stage

of this bill, the Premier made reference to studies currently

being done on Hat Creek coal. I want to ask him a simple

question: will those studies currently being done on Hat Creek

coal be made public?

The next question I have for him is which load factor is he

using in his capital cost projections. Is he using the B.C.

Hydro load factor of, I think, 9.6 to 10 per cent growth per

annum, or is he using the B.C. Energy Commission growth in load

factor which is somewhat lower? The Premier referred to this

before in debate but I was not clear at that time which figure

he is using in his capital cost calculations.

Next and related to natural gas; I understand it has been a

general policy adopted by B.C. Hydro that the Burrard thermal

unit will, where possible, not burn natural gas.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's a best-effort situation at the

moment. I would like to ask the Premier if we can't have a

guarantee that that simply won't be used. Just make that a

blanket statement. I think it would be a good thing if policy could be nailed down....

HON. MR. BARRETT: A guarantee that what?

MR. GIBSON: A guarantee that natural gas will henceforth not

be burned in the Burrard thermal unit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, I would ask the Hon. Member to

wait for his answers until he takes his seat rather than asking

the Premier to answer from his seat.

MR. GIBSON: I am not asking him to answer them, Mr.

Chairman. He seems to be listening for the questions. I was

doing my best to make it clear.

The next representation I would make relates to the revenue

available to B.C. Hydro from natural gas sales and therefore,

at least, the slight reduction in the necessity of externally

found capital funds. I submit to him that we have in this

province at the moment a serious discrimination between people

who installed in their homes heating facilities that burn oil

as opposed to natural gas. The cost of oil has recently gone up

to such an extent that those people are now paying twice or

three times as much for an equal amount of heat as people

buying natural gas.

It's difficult to roll back the past and to change too

quickly the prices that are being paid by people who installed

natural gas heating equipment based on undertakings by B.C.

Hydro in their advertising that this was the lowest cost fuel,

and that the price hadn't changed for many years. A lot of

people have put in gas equipment on that basis.

I would ask the Premier if B.C. Hydro, in its financial

thinking in the future, could not find some way of metering,

find some way of imposing a tariff so that, in terms of new

uses, new installation of gas equipment as opposed to oil

equipment, the energy costs between these two kinds of things

be equalized so that henceforth the person using oil is no

longer heavily penalized as compared to the person who's using

gas, while at the same time we are following bad conservation

practices in terms of pricing.

Just to wind up on that particular sector — in

discussing this again the other day, the Premier said that if

we sold 100 per cent of our gas in British Columbia there would

be no doubt but what we'd be up to energy-equivalent

pricing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: So I say that the principle is established, that

the principle is right, and, at least in new uses, it ought to

be brought into operation as quickly as possible.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will be some time before

[ Page 2698 ]

the study on Hat Creek coal is finished. The new ones have

just been initiated. Consideration on releasing the results

will be given at the time they are completed.

The growth figures are B.C. Hydro's projection figures. I

can't give a guarantee on non-use of gas. We inherited an

emergency sharing-of-electricity programme that was

completed by B.C. Hydro before we were in, and it may cause us

to use natural gas on occasion to meet that agreement.

MR. GIBSON: You burn oil there, though, don't you?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're burning oil there now, but it may

cause.... There was a bunker C shortage last year, you recall.

Industry was quite concerned. If that comes about, then we have

to switch to natural gas, and I can't give a guarantee that we

won't use it. It's not a good idea, but we can't give a

guarantee.

Domestic prices on natural gas are still low. I said the

government policy was to provide natural gas at lower cost

because we had a commitment to export almost 70 per cent of our

natural gas production.

I appreciate the logic of your argument, Mr. Member; I

really do. It's something to consider. I'm not saying we're

going to do it. It's something to consider about new gas. But

because of the peculiar situation we're in in terms of selling

gas at a cheap price to industrial competitors, it would be

self-defeating for us to consider charging our own

manufacturers an increased natural gas price over what our own

competitors get south of the border.

You accept, and I accept, the logic of an equivalent BTU

price. I noticed in this morning's paper there's an industry

spokesman saying the same thing: pricing should be on

equivalent BTUs. You agree to it; I agree to it; industry

agrees to it; but the federal government doesn't. Now you

figure that one out.

MR. GIBSON: They have no authority within B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they have the authority through the

National Energy Board to set the price for natural gas at the

border to go to the United States. That's where we've had the

trouble all along.

MR. GIBSON: We are talking about domestic gas.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I remember when we had a debate in here — it was when

the five of you were together, and one of the five was making the very strong

point that B.C. should set the price of natural gas to American customers on

its own. He made a heck of a good half-hour speech, only to be interrupted

by some unfortunate questioner saying: "Who has the authority to do that?" The

answer came back from your own ranks, decimated as they are now but not then,

saying: "Why that's federal."

MR. GIBSON: But we are talking about inside B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Inside B.C. you want us to extend the

concept of equivalent BTU inside B.C., and have the anomalous

situation of the Government of British Columbia charging the

equivalent of $2 per 1,000 cubic feet while the federal

government orders us to sell it to the Americans at $1.60 by

November 1.

MR. GIBSON: In harmony with the export.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In harmony? There's no harmony with logic

in the federal government. Can you see the paradoxical

situation of us selling natural gas, low equivalent BTU, at $2

per 1,000 cubic feet and the federal government telling us to

sell it to the Americans at $1.60? And you belong to the same

party!

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): The provincial Liberals flopped

out on Sunday. There's no harmony in the federal Liberals.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I guess this is a further manifestation of

the break within the Liberal Party.

The problem with you, Mr. Member, is you arrived at this

House with logic on your side, and that has never been an

impediment to the federal Liberal government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Or to this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have the foolish situation of the

federal government ordering us to sell our natural gas at $1.60

to the Americans.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What price did you ask for? How much

higher?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I asked for $2, and if I couldn't get it

right away, I wanted it in stages.

You talk about conservation policies, and you make a case

for conservation which I agree with, only to have the federal

government timorously go down to Washington, D.C., wring their

hands and apologize for increases in natural gas costs.

Regretfully I must share with you the unfortunate use of

words by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) when he moved the price of natural gas up

from 32 cents to 57 cents.

[ Page 2699 ]

He went to Washington and said it was a "savage" increase,

attacking the nasty Government of British Columbia. And we have

this shocking situation of the federal Minister of the Crown

going to Washington, D.C., wringing his hands, apologizing for

us having the nerve to sell natural gas to the Americans at

approximately 40 per cent of the value it was getting in the

United States from American producers.

MR. FRASER: That's better than going down there and talking

love.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I talked love after I

got the price.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then you are happy with the price.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. I'm not happy with the price. We

forced an increase from $1 in two stages up to $1.60. But

everybody knows that that Member's point is valid. It should be

the BTU equivalent right now, and the minimum BTU equivalent by

all measures is $2 per 1,000 cubic feet. We should be getting

$2 per 1,000 cubic feet today. The only reason we are not

getting it is because there is a timid federal Liberal

government that doesn't have the nerve or the purpose to stand

up in this country and say: "If we are going to sell those

resources, then we demand a major, significant increase in that

price to the equivalent BTU price as so ably described in the

British Columbia House by the Liberal Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)."

MR. FRASER: Send them a bill for the difference!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send them a bill for difference? We're

losing, Mr. Member, tens of millions of dollars that the

municipalities could have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You called it a victory when you came

back from Ottawa.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly it was a victory. They were

going to keep them pegged at a dollar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You recall, Mr. Chairman, when I left to

go back to Victoria, it was the official opposition and the

Liberal counterparts, before they were independents, and the

other odds and sods down the end there all saying: "Oh, you

won't get anything in Ottawa." Go back and read your

Hansard statements.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't you comment, Mr. Member. You said

that the federal government wouldn't allow us anything, and

that the scheme would never work and the municipalities would

never see a dime. Those were your statements. Well, we have to

go and tell every municipality how much money they are

getting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They should; that's right. "You are going

to get a third of nothing."

Now we had moderate success against a stubborn, unthinking,

centralist Liberal administration that has a paternalistic

attitude to the provinces, especially British Columbia, and is

forcing us to sell our gas cheaper to the Americans than what

Americans charge themselves in their own jurisdiction.

Now, you tell me, Mr. Member, what influence you have with

the federal Prime Minister. If the story gets out that they are

forcing us, as you've pointed out, to sell this gas at this

price, they could be in trouble politically. Or would they say:

"We don't want to offend our American customers." Whose gas is

it? Is it the Americans or ours?

You come into this House and you ask us to consider a BTU

equivalent policy for new gas users in British Columbia, and I

say: "I'll look at that." My challenge back to you is: how can

I logically extend that to British Columbians and ask them to

pay the BTU equivalent when the federal government prohibits us

from applying the same principle to the Americans who buy our

gas?

Now if you can rationalize that, you can prove once and for

all why you are a Liberal, because only the Liberals could have

that kind of schizophrenic policy and a policy in sum total

that means, "Sock it to the British Columbia users but go easy

with the Americans." That's what it really comes to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You name the provincial price.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We name the provincial price, and you're

suggesting to us that we should use the BTU equivalent for the

British Columbia consumers when we can't ask the BTU price for

70 per cent of our gas which is sold to the United States?

Well, that has got to be the dumbest policy I've ever heard.

Punish the British Columbians because the federal government is

forcing us to sell gas cheap to the Americans.

MR. D.A., ANDERSON: Bank it through a little more.

[ Page 2700 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, bank it through a little more. If I

took your advice, with the losses you've had recently, I

wouldn't have very much left at all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've both got unanimous votes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, when there is only one of you in a

room you're bound to get a unanimous vote. In your case there

is only two of you. Even if you lose him you've got 50 per cent

of the support that's left.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has his caucus support.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He has his caucus support. I saw that at

the microphone.

So, Mr. Member, what you are saying is logical and in

principle is right, but will not be the policy of this

government because, in effect, you punish the British Columbia

consumer and he has to pay the difference for what the federal

government forces us to sell to the Americans.

I'm not going to be a party to that; there's no way I would

have anything to do with that. That's Liberal policy: "Suffer,

ye poor Canadians, while we give everything to the Americans."

That's kind of dumb.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano

on a brief follow-up question. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I should ask

a question because the Premier spent a lot of time answering a

question I didn't ask. (Laughter.) I guess he enjoys any

opportunity to go after the federal government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it grieves me to do it.

(Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: The Premier said, for the benefit of

Hansard , that it grieves him to do it, but the smile on

his fact is something beatific to behold. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If only I could enjoy things that grieve

me so much!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't my suggestion, and it's

not the suggestion of my party, that the domestic price of

natural gas in British Columbia should rise beyond the export

price. It should not rise that far, nor should it rise that

quickly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You said BTU equivalent, though.

MR. GIBSON: That's the goal, Mr. Premier, that we all have

for export. I'm not suggesting that we reach that goal

domestically before we reach it on the export side.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It should be export now; it should be

export price now.

MR. GIBSON: It should be export price very quickly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now.

MR. GIBSON: Very quickly. In the hope that that is clarified

a little bit, Mr. Chairman.... I don't want to spend any more

time on that.

Since the Premier answered a question I didn't ask, I would

ask him also to answer a question I did ask and comment briefly

upon the B.C. Energy Commission and the desirability of B.C.

Hydro falling under their purview.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that was, as I said,

thoroughly canvassed in an earlier debate. I said it was

something we would certainly look at.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I stand in my place to offer a few

comments and to correct a couple of statements the Premier made

as interjections while he was speaking about this matter of the

price of natural gas. I'd like to say for the record and to

recall to the Premier's mind that at no time have I ever

suggested that the price of natural gas that we sold on the

export market was what it should be — that it was worth

more on an equivalent basis. We quarreled on methods you used

to accomplish your ends — that was all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: I had always suggested that it was a matter that

could have been negotiated with the National Energy Board on

the existing basis without setting up the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

The means of coming to a solution to the problem we disagree

on, but the fact of the matter is this: I am as aware as you

are that natural gas as a fuel, and a premium fuel, is underpriced today according to equivalent heat factors from other

sources. Let's not argue about that.

I feel that it would be a mistake to punish British Columbians and charge them

excess prices for the consumption of natural gas until such time as the export

market, which consumes 70 per cent of our production, pays the price that it

should on an equivalent basis. But I say this to the Premier: All of the gas

production in British Columbia comes from northeastern British Columbia, and

it's substantial.

[ Page

2701 ]

There's a feeling generally in that part of the province

that it's entirely unfair for the Province of British Columbia

to use $20 million of the additional windfall profits they now

have from the sale of natural gas to subsidize all of the

municipal costs in the Province of British Columbia without

giving some special consideration to that area of the province

where the gas is produced, a new, growing area where the

problems are far more substantial than they are in the old

settled communities of British Columbia.

There is a school of thought, as a matter of fact, in the

North that, perhaps in order to illustrate the point, one of

these days on a cold day they should crank down the wheel, shut

it off for a period of 12 hours and see what really happens

when people start to blow the whistle and hit the panic button.

They don't feel that they're being treated fairly for a

resource that comes out of the ground literally under their

feet.

I'd like to spend just a few minutes on this matter that was

raised by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

— that is, employment of people on Site 1 by Dillingham

Corp. I happen to know, Mr. Chairman, that before any work

started on Site 1, but after the contract had been entered into

between B.C. Hydro and Dillingham, a number of discussions took

place concerning this whole matter of Manpower and the

employment of local people. It was a matter that the Canada

Manpower representatives, the Dillingham Corp., B.C. Hydro and,

as a matter of fact, representatives of the unions discussed at

some length. At that time there was a common agreement among

those people, as I understand it, that wherever possible the

prime contractor and any of their subcontractors would employ

local people on Site 1. So let's not fog up the situation.

Before the project started there seemed to be common

agreement among all those people who would be involved,

including the unions, because of the contract signed between

B.C. Hydro and Dillingham that local people would be employed

wherever possible. But what has been reported to you this

afternoon by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is

exactly true. What was said a few months ago prior to the start

of any construction and what is taking place now are different

things. I think the Premier and the Minister of Labour should

investigate it.

If people who met and discussed this problem in detail were serious and concerned

before the contract was entered into or any construction started, they should

be equally concerned now when we do have many people who are long-time residents

of the northeastern part of British Columbia looking for jobs today and finding

that the only jobs available go to people from outside of the area, some of

them being shipped in and shuttled in and out, staying for two or three weeks

and then leaving again. I would hope that the Minister and the Premier, as a

director of Hydro, and as concerned about it as I am, would look into this problem.

It seemed to be solved and now, all of a sudden, it has become a major problem

in that area.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are most interested in the Premier's

remarks, reinterpreting the victory he had in Ottawa some time

ago. He came back claiming victory. It now appears it was not

enough.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not enough. It should be more, but it

is a victory nonetheless.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. We are delighted that he

has accepted the same policy as the Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and myself. But what I

would like to do, Mr. Chairman, with your permission and, of

course....

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Simma

Holt is going to get you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, we are thinking up a message to send

to Simma. There is a bottle of Scotch for the best message to

be thought up. There is a reward being offered and there is...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...an excellent suggestion coming from

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) which is being

considered.

Anyway, what I would like to do is ask the Premier about a

question and about a problem which goes one step beyond that

talked about by my colleague from North Vancouver. He talked

about putting B.C. Hydro under the energy board for the

purposes of having some rationalization of process here. The

energy board should be in charge not only of gas but also of

electricity and other things. There is some validity to that. I

won't go into the Premier's comments on it.

What I would like to do, though, is go back to what the

Premier said in this debate some days ago where he talked about

19 years from now and what could happen. He talked about the

future in terms of 19 years, which is, of course, the length of

time remaining for the first part. It could, of course, be

reviewed as we all know. He talked about Hydro and Mica. He

talked about Site 1. All of what he said was most interesting,

an excellent speech. I would like to continue a little along

that line.

I do not think that B.C. Hydro should, in isolation,

determine growth rates for this province. I have looked at B.C.

Hydro material in terms of their forecast. I have looked at

them and I have seen this figure of over $3 billion, which is

talked about for the

[ Page 2702 ]

very near future in terms of capital investment. It strikes

me that it is not Hydro that should be determining the grown

rate for this province, which is essentially the case. It is

not even the energy board that should be determining the growth

rate of this province, which is essentially what we are talking

about. This is really a political decision which the Premier

and cabinet and, I guess, this House, all Members of it, the

opposition as well, I hope, should be involved in making.

If we are to have substantial growth in the Province of

British Columbia, if we are to affect the growth rate of the

Province of British Columbia, we are affecting the way of life

of all British Columbians. We are affecting such things as the

school system. I notice the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) is looking quite attentive. We are creating strains

upon our existing facilities. If we are talking about

expansion, which is essentially what we talk about when we

expand the energy base, expansion for future industry,

we are talking about political decisions.

Certainly the energy board should provide us with studies

and information. Certainly B.C. Hydro should, in its turn,

provide us and the energy board with projections and

information in terms of costs so that we can calculate, as

people elected by the population of British Columbia, what the

best course is for us.

Mr. Chairman, not all the consequences of growth are

desirable. The Premier has made some most interesting

statements outside the House on this. But he has never related

this general question of growth to the question of energy. The

link is direct and the link is causal. In this province if you

have energy, you are going to have growth. The Premier made

that perfectly clear when he talked about jobs going south

because energy went south. He talked in his speech, again to

quote him, about the low-cost industry for power in the

south, south of the line, the capital investment that went to

the United States. He talked about tens of thousands of jobs

and industry that went south. He is perfectly right. In no way

do I dispute that. What I am saying, however, is that if we are

considering massive expansion of energy requirements in B.C.,

we are going to have to consider where we want to go and what

the growth rate should be.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I will remain well

within the rules of the House and quote from a study by Profs.

Wright and Mansell of the department of economics of the

University of Calgary.

It is entitled "The Impact of Large-Scale Investment in the Alberta Economy

and the Role of Migration in the Adjustment Process" — a technical paper. The

summery, or conclusion, is perhaps less technical and I will read just a short

section from it.

"It follows that not all of the consequences of accelerated

development are desirable, even when viewed solely from economic perspective.

If this is the case, it seems that the appropriate role for provincial government

would be to establish a target growth rate for the aggregate investment (based

on economic, social and environmental considerations and determined by the political

process) which it believes to be optimal. If, as is likely, this growth rate

is less than the sum of the amounts that the private sector and the various

levels of government would choose to invest if they were left to their own devices

" — and I have underlined this in my text — "the provincial government would

be required to constrain expansion. This kind of intervention in the market

runs counter to the ideology and the temperament of many provincial politicians

who have become accustomed to being evaluated positively if they encourage rather

than regulate growth. Many will find it difficult to switch from the established

role of being facilitators to become dampeners."

The Premier has, as I have mentioned on a number of

occasions, talked about this problem in very general terms, but

we are now dealing with it in this three-line bill in

very specific terms. We are dealing with future requirements of

money for Hydro. We are dealing with, of course, putting this

province further into debt in terms of the Hydro debts to Arab

nations or other people who loan us money.

We are dealing also in terms of the likelihood of greater

concentrations of people in the lower mainland, an area already

as populated as Holland is on a square-mile basis. We are

dealing with a number of very fundamental problems which come

up under this type of bill.

We are dealing also with what the future holds in terms of

British Columbia becoming a province of 10 million people, or

British Columbia becoming a province with five million people,

or even British Columbia remaining a province of something less

than that.

It's a problem which has been met in some American

jurisdictions — in particular, Oregon, where the decision

was made not to simply allow hydro companies, such as B.C.

Hydro, to constantly expand, constantly borrow money,

constantly dam the rivers, constantly set up new thermal or

nuclear generating plants so that, in turn, any private

investment decision could find the energy that it needed to

proceed.

It's a question that we have not faced up to in this

province, and I raise it because I think it is tremendously

important that we have in British Columbia some sort of

discussion in terms of future growth and future energy

requirements. I know the Premier agrees. The trouble is that we

have had three

[ Page 2703 ]

years of his government, and we've yet to have any clear

debate on that issue either in this House or outside.

Although it's correct to say that the B.C. Energy Commission

should play a bigger role, it's not enough to say that. In

addition to that, we are going to have to look at whether or

not we want all these projections of private and public

investment to materialize, and whether or not we want a growth

rate which may prove in the long run to create substantial

environmental, social or economic side effects which are

adverse.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is

fully aware, I believe, of the problem. However, he is charged

with development. He is not charged with analyzing these

optimal levels or where we should go or how we should be doing

it. I don't think — and I differ with the Premier on this

— that the Province of British Columbia has, for example,

adequate hydro or even coal reserves for massive developments

for new energy sources. I don't think we have it. Even if we

did have them, I do not think it would be desirable to exploit

them all.

I quote from The Vancouver Sun of January 24, 1974, a

little over a year ago, where the Premier is quoted as saying

at the provincial-federal energy conference:

"...that he has a personal bias against nuclear power

generation because of the possible health hazard involved and

that, in any case, B.C. can provide for all of its power needs

by further utilization of its power-producing rivers. He

went on to say that there is no need for B.C. to even consider,

at this point, nuclear power generation."

I see the Premier applauding, and I respect his views.

However, I do not accept his argument that we do have adequate

rivers to constantly increase the supply of energy in the

province. I think that we are going to run out of dammable

rivers. I think that we are not going to be able to find sites

for future hydro development, even though we may be able to

find the money for it under bills such as this. If we are to

have ever-increasing industrial development in the

province of British Columbia, if we are to continue, as a

provincial government and as a provincial administration, to

constantly go out and make decisions which encourage population

growth in British Columbia, if we are going to continue to do

that, we inevitably will have to turn to thermal power, coal

and nuclear power.

What we are doing in this particular bill is borrowing money

for existing committed projects. But the future is important as

well. It appears there is very little thought going into any

development of plans for future growth in B.C. or future

industrial development in B.C.

It's not enough, as that quotation I gave you indicated, to

simply have politicians judged on the basis of whether or not

they can encourage a higher rate of growth than previously.

What is clearly desirable is looking for the optimal rate of

growth or what we wish to have and then testing political

programmes against whether or not they achieve that optimal

rate or that optimal goal.

So I hope that the Premier, in discussing this, will say a

few words about the planning or the discussions we can expect

about a much more fundamental problem than whether or not the

B.C. Energy Commission has a look at the work of B.C. Hydro. At

the present time, B.C. Hydro is calling the shots in terms of

growth in this province. B.C. Hydro and its planners —

and I don't know how many they have in this area — are

determining the future of this province. They are determining

the congestion in this province; they are determining the

population levels in this province; they are determining the

industrial base of this province. These people, while excellent

technical people, are not the ones who should be doing it. It

should be determined by public debate, discussion and by the

public itself, which of course involves the public's

representatives in this House.

Let me quickly, Mr. Chairman, put in a quick word for an

examination of nuclear power. The Premier and I differ on this

but our disagreement is this: I think we should keep a watching

brief and study it as closely as we can. I personally believe

that unless we adopt the course of action I suggested a few

moments ago and start deciding what our optimal goals are,

we're inevitably going to be sucked into ever-increasing

power developments, which means nuclear power. I cannot see us

finding adequate sources of energy elsewhere. Hat Creek has

been mentioned.

I would refer the Premier to an excellent issue of the B.C.

Professional Engineer , one of our own publications. It

deals with nuclear power and it deals with an alternative for

British Columbia. The month of this issue is March of this

year, volume 26, No. 3. The editorial is written by Dr. J.B.

Warren, University of British Columbia, and it's a very

thoughtful editorial.

He points out that to provide an overall view B.C. has

nothing comparable to the research team in Quebec Hydro. There

is not even an energy think-tank at the one and only

engineering faculty in the B.C. universities. He points out

that thermal power in actual fact will create more problems of

radio-active waste than a nuclear plant. It sounds

ironic, but it happens to be true. He talks of coal as being

filthy to burn and making more radioactive fallout than any

nuclear plant. It's filthy and clumsy to mine but it is

available in B.C. in huge quantities. We may one day want it

not only for metallurgical reduction but also for conversion to

methanol or

[ Page 2704 ]

similar clean liquid fuels which we could substitute for

gasoline.

Dr. Warren, whose views I respect, goes on to talk about

uranium as a potential source of energy and he talks about the

Canadian development of the unique and safe CANDU system. Now

those are his views. It may not be as safe as he thinks it is.

Certainly I and the Premier are not technically qualified

enough to judge Dr. Warren's views. But he thinks that clearly

one day this may well be a substantial contribution to our B.C.

baseload electricity as well as the source of energy required

to convert coal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which Warren is that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's J.B. Warren, who is known to the

Premier and to myself, but I'm sure — the Premier nods

— that we both respect him for his considerable

ability.

I am not here, because clearly I am not technically

qualified enough, to advocate nuclear power to the Premier. I

am only advocating this one thing: we keep abreast of

developments in nuclear technology because, unless we do, we

can dam river after river, as seems to be the proposal of B.C.

Hydro and the Premier, and will never really satisfy our energy

demands of the future and we will ultimately have to wind up

with nuclear power anyway.

Certainly, unless we start laying down some industrial

goals, creating some parameters, some industrial strategy, we

will continue to require ever-increasing amounts of

energy. If we continue to burn up natural gas, if we continue

to use coal, both fuels which could be used for other purposes

— or, at least, both substances which could be used for

other purposes — we may well in the future be damned by

our grandchildren as having been enormously wasteful.

Mr. Chairman, this issue of the B.C. Professional

Engineer has a number of other excellent articles on

nuclear power. We have had in this province a very brief and

very inadequate so-called argument, so-called

public discussion on nuclear power.

I have in my hand an

article by Moira Farrow of The

Vancouver Sun , talking about a meeting which the provincial

government sponsored, inviting people to hear the pros and cons

of nuclear power. She goes on to say in her first paragraph:

"About six hours of debate did more to confuse than clarify the

issues."

The Premier states that this is the first public venture of

this kind in the province. It was inspired by the Premier. I

heartily endorse what he did. I think it is a first-class

approach. However, it did not, let's face it, get very far.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For the benefit of Hansard , Mr. Chairman, the Premier

has interjected that it started discussion and that is exactly what I'm asking.

Well, it is not quite exactly what I am asking. It began discussion but it left

people more confused than ever. Since that time more than a year ago, there

has been no follow-up, no continuous discussion and no real study.

HON. MR. BARRETT: People have phoned; they're writing; they

are asking for them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure, there is plenty of comment. But

really and truly what we don't have is a technical group in

British Columbia keeping a watching brief, keeping up to date

on nuclear power as an alternative to others. The reason is

fair enough. The reason is clear. It is because, as the Premier

states, he has a personal bias against nuclear power generation

because of possible health hazards. In any case, B.C. can

provide for all its power needs by further utilization of its

power-producing rivers.

I dispute the second part of that statement by the Premier back last

January 24. I disputed it then, I dispute it now, because there is no

question that if we carry on, we are going to have to consider nuclear

power. There has been talk about nuclear power being dangerous, that it

is dangerous genetically. Yet Dr. Teller, who has some knowledge of

nuclear power, said the genetic effects of tight pants are probably

greater than the genetic effects of strontium 90. We have had people

such as Dr. Michael Pierce from the University of Victoria give some

excellent information as to the safety of nuclear power plants. The

fact is that nuclear power may well be, as is pointed out in the B.C. Professional

Engineer by George Lawrence, who has worked with nuclear plants and in that area since 1930.... Dr. Lawrence says:

"It is much less hazardous to the public than the storage

and use of vast quantities of common inflammable and toxic

materials that occur in our cities with little precaution."

He says:

"I believe that everyone who is well informed about Canadian

nuclear reactors safety practice shares my convictions. The

risk to public health and to property outside CANDU nuclear

power stations operated under Canadian regulatory control is

less than risks which are accepted for many other activities of

equivalent economic importance."

Sure, there are risks in nuclear power, and these gentlemen

admit it, which makes their presentation a great deal more

convincing. But what they point out is that there are risks in

having storage of oil by way of large oil tanks or tank farms;

there is risk in the storage of natural gas; there is risk in

the storage of just about everything.

[ Page 2705 ]

The argument has been made that there is no way to dispose

of the waste, yet that particular problem is dealt with by Dr.

McLean and Dr. Dyne in that same issue of the B.C.

Professional Engineer .

Mr. Chairman, in voting on this $750 million for power

development, I do think it is important that we realize that we

may well be sucking ourselves into literally billions upon

billions of dollars of investment for energy requirements, or

projected energy requirements, to bring industry to the

Province of British Columbia, which in turn may well affect our

lifestyle, and which in turn in the future we may decide we are

not so happy with. I do hope that we will have the opportunity

in this Legislature of debating in a very general sense,

sometime in the future, goals and objectives in terms of

industrial strategy, because right now it is entirely the wrong

group of people and entirely the wrong approach who are

determining the future of British Columbia. It is a small group

of planners in B.C. Hydro who are making no value judgments in

terms of desirability or otherwise of growth in certain areas.

They are simply accepting projections from private industry,

from public corporations, accepting those projections and

saying: "Right, we have to meet those requirements."

There is no evaluation at all at the present time in the

Province of British Columbia as to whether or not those

projections for power are indeed desirable in the light of what

they bring to this province. There is none, that is perfectly

clear. It is not the fault of the people at B.C. Hydro. It is

not their job to do that. It is our job as politicians. It is

the public's job also to decide.

What we have here is a

cart-before-the-horse situation where instead

of the B.C. Hydro planners being ultimately told, "Look, we

have decided that this is an optimal position, an optimal

goal", we have them saying: "We accept from industry, public

and private, how much they expect to be needing in the future;

we will meet that."

We then go from the Hydro to the government, who says,

"Look, here is a bill which requires hundreds of millions of

dollars," and we have never once examined whether or not we

need to have that type of development in the province or that

type of expenditure.

I don't wish to say very much more, but I would like to just point out that

in our neighbouring province of Alberta, they have decided to go the route of

very heavy industrial expansion. I personally think they are wrong. I think

that Lougheed's development proposals will create those 100,000 new jobs he's

talking about, will bring in the half million new people he's talking about,

and in all probability, at the end of it, Alberta will have no increase in the

personal disposable income. It will remain as it is at the present — very much

the Canadian average. I believe there are going to be heavy inflationary pressures

in Alberta as a result of that development, just as they are now discovering

there is in Alaska as a result of their heavy involvement in energy development.

I think they're going to find themselves further and further and further in

debt, just as we are, to Arab nations and others, as they borrow the money for

these new developments. This will lead to greater and greater expenditure in

the way of dividends or interest payments and things of that nature outside

the province, as they pay for their borrowings in future years.

The final point I would make is what I think has happened

there and is still happening here — that when you develop

enormous construction industries, you find it very, very

difficult to terminate general programmes of construction. You

wind up at the end of your construction of Mica, you wind up at

the end of your construction of Site 1, with an enormous labour

force geared to heavy construction, a large number of companies

geared to it. The next thing the government has to do, of

course, is look around for another major programme simply to

keep employment within reasonable bounds. Once again, it's not

the rational way to make decisions — to try and meet a

short-run problem with a continuation of what may well be

an unsound long-term programme.

So with those comments, may I say that we're going to

continue to vote as we have before on this bill because we

don't think it provides the right information, and we trust

that in future the Premier will provide us with legislation

which allows us to analyse where this province is going and

whether it's a desirable course.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read

a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 70, Mr.

Speaker.

FISHERIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, although there are quite

[ Page 2706 ]

a few amendments proposed for the Fisheries Act, most of

them reflect no change in the branch's philosophy or

responsibilities. They are mostly an updating, and, in some

cases, removal of rather ambiguous sections that appeared in

the old Act. Some of the terms that were used, for instance,

boat pullers — there is no longer that activity; that

activity is about 50 years old. Also other terms such as

pilchard canneries, pilchard reduction plants — there is

no longer a pilchard fishery within British Columbia.

The Act hasn't been changed in some respects for up to 40

years. The major changes are that the branch's name is changed

from commercial fisheries to marine resources. This change more

reflects the activities of the branch. The branch is no longer

just concerned with commercial activities. For example, they

are now involved in the recreational management of wild

oysters. Just this year we reseeded recreational areas —

transported to recreational areas some 20 tons of oysters that

were inaccessible before.

We're also involved in managing aquatic plants, and these

are not fisheries, so in that respect the branch's names is

being proposed to be changed.

Also, the citizenship requirement for licensed fisheries is

brought about to bring this part of the Act in line with the

federal Fisheries Act, so there'll no longer be confusion

between the two Acts.

There is a replacement of the commissioner of fisheries;

it's changed to the director of fisheries. This change was made

necessary because there has been a director in the branch for a

decade whose function is exactly the same as the former

commissioner. This title is obsolete, so the Act has been

changed to read "the director of fisheries" and not "the

commissioner." These are just housekeeping items.

There is another

section that will bring in a provision to

allow certain types of processing at sea.

The updating of these four significant changes has resulted

in the necessary amendments of a number of sections because of

the repetition in various sections.

I would move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Due to the make-up of this bill and the

number of amendments, I think it could best be discussed in

committee stage on the various amendments. We will reserve our

discussion on the bill until that time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: While there are many things that

will be discussed at the committee stage, there are a number of

things I would like to mention at the moment — one or two

at least.

The first is to congratulate the Minister for bringing this bill up to date.

It has, as he pointed out, a long history in British Columbia and it hasn't

been amended for a very long time.

It also emphasizes a problem which the Minister is fully

aware of and which he seems to be grasping fairly well, and

that is the conflicting jurisdictions of the federal and

provincial governments. The federal government seems to be

responsible for all the fish, but all the harvesting of the

fish, the floating docks, the canneries, the buying of fish,

and all the rest seem to be a provincial responsibility.

I feel it would be remiss of us in this House not to point

out that this Minister has been a very co-operative

Minister. There seem to be much better developments with

respect to federal and provincial fisheries departments than

ever before in my memory. I have some minor knowledge of

fishing, generally in not catching fish. I congratulate him for

that. He is bringing the Act up to date and it's clear that he

is bringing it up to date in a manner which is very much in

harmony with the federal Fisheries Act. His people are now, for

the first time, working fairly closely in conjunction with the

federal fisheries people.

I cannot stress too much how this has changed from previous

years when federal and provincial officials spent their time in

neutralizing the efforts of one another and, from the point of

view of the public, very little was achieved. The present

situation with the present Minister is that they seem to be

working well in harmony and they seem to be working with common

goals. The public, at long last, is getting its money's worth

from the vast amount of money which we put into the fisheries,

both at the federal and at the provincial level.

I think it also should be mentioned at this time the steps

that are being taken to deal with the problem of salmon streams

in British Columbia, which also become areas of joint

responsibility. This is not exactly on point in this bill

although there are some sections which refer to it. The

Minister has made very reasonable efforts to mesh stream

development with the federal fisheries department and this has

helped enormously.

A final point, Mr. Speaker, which is quite out of order, but

I would like to thank the Minister for his diligent efforts to

kill the Chemainus dam. I feel that this would have been a

retrograde step and very bad had it continued. He did a fine

job there, despite a lot of problems from his cabinet

colleagues. I think that he deserves congratulations on that as

well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, the previous speaker is quite right.

(Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, I agree with his statements. However,

it was not my decision on the Chemainus dam. It was this

government's decision to forestall any dam and do an

investigation on the

[ Page 2707 ]

Chemainus river.

The previous speaker was also correct in stating that there

is complete co-operation between the federal government

Fisheries department and our branch of marine resources. I have

met on several occasions with the new Minister, Romeo LeBlanc,

and I find him a very co-operative person. This

government is looking forward to working with the federal

government on the enhancement programme in British

Columbia.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

referred to a committee of the whole House....

MR. SPEAKER: May I first ask the House whether they want to

read it a second time?

Motion approved.

Bill 70, Fisheries Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Second reading of Bill

PERSONAL INFORMATION REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Affairs): This

amendment Act is proposed to enlarge the scope of the

definition of reporting agencies.

Heretofore under the existing legislation the only agencies

required to issue reasons for denial of credit or benefit were

the credit bureaus; in other words, agencies that had this as a

full-time business. However, in society there are many

other credit-gathering instruments: department stores,

credit card companies, financial institutions, and many others

that do not have credit-gathering information as a

profit-making part of their organization but do have it

as a function of their respective businesses. So this has been

enlarged to permit the consumer to find out why he has been

denied credit or why an increase in benefit has been required

of him in the matter of credit.

The proposed amendments would require all businesses that

provide information to each other to be prepared to disclose

such information to the consumer affected if the consumer is

denied a benefit or credit or there is an increase in the

amount of charges for the credit.

In addition, we are not requiring agencies such as financial institutions,

credit card companies, department stores, et cetera to register as the credit

bureaus are required to register. They will be merely required to observe the

Act and to give the consumer the access to the information that they have on

their records.

We have talked to the industry, however, and found that

there was one

section that was a bit onerous on the industry

and really was not that beneficial to the consumer. That was a

requirement that the credit-granting organizations give a

very detailed statement of what the report contained to the

consumer when they advised that he or she had been turned down.

It's been the experience in this province and in other

provinces that the consumer is satisfied usually with simply

being told that he was turned down and also where he could get

the details of why. This is the amendment that we are proposing

to bring it in line with the practices followed in most other

provinces and also to assist the business community to some

degree because they have found in their experience that

frequently the consumer knows why he has been turned down for

credit. So these are some of the aspects.

In addition, we have found that under the existing

legislation the consumer had to appear in person to obtain

their report from a credit bureau. This presented a problem for

people who lived usually outside of the lower mainland or lived

in isolated communities. So we provided a device whereby they

can obtain the report on their credit by mail through having

their signature on their request either notarized by a public

notary or by a commissioner of oaths.

In addition, in keeping with other legislation this

department has brought in, we have designed a

section to

provide civil remedy in the event that there are damages or

losses suffered by the consumer because of contravention of

this Act.

That sums up the main features of the amendments to this

legislation. I now move second reading.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I agree with

the Minister that this appears to be a bill in which she is

extending the scope of consumer disclosure as far as credit is

concerned. I listened with great interest to some of her

points; I want to comment on them if I may.

I'd like to ask her if there is any room in the amendments

as she sees them for the result of court action to allow the

court to order an institution to extend credit to a customer.

In other words....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll leave that with the Minister. Perhaps

she'll comment on it in closing because I think it would

influence our discussions in committee stage.

I think generally we would like our debate to take place in

committee stage, but the Minister did touch

[ Page 2708 ]

on one or two points that I would like to comment on. I also

would like to discuss one or two points which, while not

wanting to trespass on the committee stage, I feel that the

Minister's response will influence, again, our debate and

presentation in committee.

Regarding the Minister's own statements, if I understood

correctly, she has mentioned that at the request of the

industry itself she withdrew a

section which would require

those denying credit to disclose the full reason to the

consumer.

I have no desire, and our party has no desire, to make

business more cumbersome. Certainly this government must take

credit for giving business in this province one of the most

cumbersome jurisdictions in Canada. But on the other hand

— well, in 90 per cent of the cases the consumer does

know why they are not receiving credit — there are cases

where there may be information on their credit rating which

they are not aware of. I'm sorry that I can't cite any

particular instances specifically at this time, but I am sure

the Minister will recall that there have been mistaken

identifications where a person might well have found a criminal

action attributed to their record in the past year or two years

when in fact it is the wrong name or the wrong person.

There are other instances where actions have been attributed

to individuals when in fact it is not the correct individual.

This has been one of the most serious concerns regarding the

need for public disclosure of credit ratings of consumers, and

I would ask the Minister to comment on that. Does this mean, in

light of her change of attitude, that the consumer no longer

will have the right to actually see that credit rating report

and all the details? I feel that this is a very important

aspect of this whole type of legislation.

There are two sections that concern our party. Perhaps I've

not interpreted them correctly — I am not a lawyer

— but I would like to draw them to the Minister's

attention.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: No, no. I'm just a little country girl trying

to make my way in this cold, cruel, political world.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you going to hire me?

I have to refer to the sections, Madam Minister. In

section

22, if I understand it correctly, the effect of striking out

the word "registered" means that to say that any notice or

order that is delivered under this Act is considered legally

given or, I believe in the terms of the lawyer, sufficiently

given at the time that it is delivered in person or by regular

mail.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to point out

that when we come to committee stage you will be able to put

questions and make statements time after time in committee? If

you have any suggestions for improvement, you could put

something on the order paper now without indulging in too much

of the details that go into the various sections of the

bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I

predicated my statements on a previous statement that I didn't

want to transgress, but also I felt that there was a principle

involved here and the Minister's response would affect our

debate in committee stage. The principle I am trying to ask the

Minister to comment on is that by amending the Act,

section 22,

you've introduced a principle of legal responsibility effective

at mailing date by regular mail, and there is no proof for the

individual who is supposed to receive that notice that they

have in fact received it. Conversely, there would be no proof

that those sending the mail or instigating the legal action

would, in fact, have done this.

I understand that this leads to complications under the laws

of natural justice, and I am sure the Minister wouldn't want to

do that. We'd like the Minister to comment on this if she

understands the principle that if you have taken out the use of

registered mail as a means of legal responsibility and you are

using the general mail.... In

section 25, we feel that the

criticism of this

section is that in principle it is fine to

give the consumer protection for when he suffers loss or damage

as a result of contravening the Act; however, we would have to

question seriously and possibly object to what must take place

with the inclusion of the word "inconvenience" in two places in

the principle, using the principle of "inconvenience" in the

strong definition in the Act. I would ask how the Minister

interprets this term. In other words, what does it mean and

what is the implication in principle of the word

"inconvenience"?

It seems like a rather unpalatable statutory construction

which leads to confusion on the part of the consumers and legal

practitioners alike. I would suggest that the principle the

Minister is trying to institute here surely is not intended to

be that any minor inconvenience, in the Minister's own terms,

is immediately worth $100 or a greater amount. I suggest to the

Minister that such wording could lead to the clogging of the

courts with minor crank procedures and cases. It could also

force the courts into a position of levying a fine of $100 in

terms of inconvenience, but in a manner in which the court

itself might not agree with, just because of the wording of the

Act.

The second principle in this amendment, which we seriously

question, takes place with reference to the

[ Page 2709 ]

cause of action, the person who contravenes this Act. If the

employee of a reporting agency, by error of omission or

direction, gave out material in contravention of the Act, or in

violation of the Act, it seems to suggest that the employee

himself — he or she, and not the agency — is

responsible and could be held accountable through the courts

through legal action.

I would suggest in principle, Mr. Speaker, that there should

perhaps be an amendment to this

section stating that there is a

cause of action against the agency or the reporting body or the

corporation or the person who contravenes the Act and that this

be in the Act, not leave the sole responsibility upon the

individual person. In other words, they should be backed up by

those who give them the directions, or the company they work

for, in terms of any contravention of the Act that they might

entertain. They might well be operating under the direct order

of management, yet it's the employee, as I understand it, who

could be held responsible to the courts, and fined.

I would hope that the Minister doesn't intend this principle

to apply and that she would indicate she's going to bring in an

amendment to this principle. If not, I fully feel that we would

like to, subject to her discussion.

The rest of the bill, I think, we will discuss in Committee

stage, Mr. Speaker. But I hope the Minister will answer these

questions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on the principle of the bill

and particular references in the bill to increasing the cost of

a benefit to the consumer, I must say that I would like the

Minister's views, in closing this debate, on the whole question

of credit cards and the enormously increasing costs to

consumers — there being absolutely no provision for the

cash customer who is often the person who can't get credit

because he's not wealthy enough, who in turn has to pay the

same price even though the shopkeeper or the retailer receives

less money. In other words, a subsidy in the area of consumer

credit, in the area of credit cards is from the poorer person

who can't get the credit cards. He pays a subsidy which in turn

makes it easier for wealthier people to use credit cards and

get the benefits of credit.

I think the Minister would probably agree with me, and have

some interesting words on this very, very poor situation, a

current situation whereby credit cards are becoming more and

more in use. The result is, of course, anywhere from a 4 to 7

per cent increase in the price of goods on the shelves. Yet

anybody who comes in to pay cash cannot take advantage of a

lower price even though the shopkeeper keeps 100 cents on the

dollar when the guy pays cash and only gets 93 to 96 cents on

the dollar when he uses a credit card.

There's discrimination in this province, discrimination

throughout North America and, indeed, now the world on the

basis of these wretched cards. I have a number, and if I use

them I believe I should pay more because I am using them for

the convenience that they provide. But if somebody comes up and

pays cash, they in turn should have the benefit of paying cash

— in other words, a cheaper price.

I know full well, we all know full well, that all these

credit card systems depend upon a percentage being paid by the

storekeeper on the basis of the bills, and this means that he

gets less money. There's no reason for this discrimination to

continue.

When you're talking on a bill such as this about the costs

of a benefit to a consumer, whether it be either wholly or in

part because of information, et cetera, you're talking about a

system which, in my mind, brings up the very question of these

credit cards, and a system we have established that

discriminates against the person who uses cash.

I would urge upon the Minister, through her department, to

encourage what are called Cashex cards. In other words, as well

as all those other things you see in the door of a store

— American Express, Diner's Club, heaven knows what else

— you also have a little card saying Cashex. If a person

came in with a card, perhaps from the Minister's own office,

her own department, saying this card is a Cashex card and he

presented it like everybody else presented their credit cards,

that person should get an instantaneous 5 per cent reduction on

the price of anything in that store. Otherwise he or she, or it

— I don't know, I'm getting confused on these sexist

terms — has to pay for the credit of everybody else

because the average price of all goods in British Columbia in

all those stores that have credit cards is higher than it

otherwise needs to be. It's an iniquitous situation.

I urge the Minister in closing to let me know that this will

be amended in committee stage to wipe out the subsidy paid by

poorer people in society to wealthier people in society on the

basis of the credit card.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and her question whether a court could

order the extension of credit to a customer. I don't believe

they can. It is my advice that they cannot. I appreciate that I

have had people say: "I've cleaned up my credit ratings and

everything — why can't I get credit?"

Of course, that remains at the discretion of the credit

grantors, whether they wish to extend credit to that person or

not. I realize this works a hardship on some people but it

still is the credit grantors' right.

In the matter of denial of full disclosure to the customer,

no, I think the Hon. Member misunderstood me in that regard. In

no way does this

[ Page 2710 ]

deny the consumer the right to know why he was denied a

benefit or a credit.

At the present time what is required is that if there has

been a denial of credit, the credit bureau or the

credit-granting agency — let's say it is a

department store which got the information from a credit bureau

— has to go through a lengthy explanation of why you were

denied the benefit. They must mail this out by registered mail

to everyone who has been denied. What we are saying now is that

many times the person knows why he has been denied credit, so

we are saying the customer will be told he has been denied

credit and where the information came from. He will be given a

time period of 60 days and the name and address of where he can

obtain the information and the whole record. Then the customer

can follow up from there and get the information on why he was

denied the credit or what is on his file.

What we have done here is extend it, because, as the Member

stated, we know of examples where people got the name wrong. I

had a case of that yesterday brought to my attention in which

somebody in the constituency of the Hon. Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland) was billed with a collection notice. He had

never ever used the services of this particular person and

didn't even know the man existed, but he was being dunned and

receiving a dunning notice.

So anyway, this is what we mean. Somewhere along the line,

somebody has got the records fouled up. He can contact the

credit bureau or, in my view, the collection agency, and say:

"Where did you get this information?" He has already done this

because it is erroneous. He can contract the credit bureau and

ask for a copy of his file. He can appear in person or, as I

explained before, he can obtain it by mail.

As far as registered mail goes, this is in regard to a

denial of benefit or something of that nature. Ordinary mail

would suffice to advise a person. In the case of registered

mail, the cost is fairly high. According to the Act, he has to

get written reasons for a denial. If you tell somebody, "I'm

sorry, you haven't lived in the city long enough," and

then you have to send them a registered letter saying, "I'm

sorry, you haven't lived in the city long enough," it is

sort of redundant. We chopped that out and made it a little bit

smoother.

In the matter of inconvenience, it would be for a court to

determine if there were inconvenience in a person obtaining

information, of having erroneous information put on his record,

what kind of mental stress he went through. It would be for a

judge to determine this and to make a judgment on whether there

had been inconvenience and to what degree. That would be

strictly up to the court.

In regard to an employee being held liable for violating the Act, it specifically

states that no person shall knowingly supply this information. If there were

an error, quite obviously the reporting agency might not be aware there was

an error until the consumer brought it to their attention. They cannot be held

liable in any way. But if they knowingly provide false information....

I think the Hon. Member will recall some years ago an

article in one of the Weekend magazines that comes with

the newspapers in which a credit bureau agent was required to

deliver something like 30 reports a month.

Well, there was no way he could possibly investigate 30

people a month, so he made up half of the stuff he sent in, and

it was disgraceful. This is quite obviously the thing we're

trying to prevent in the legislation.

In regard to what the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) said about credit cards, unfortunately this

legislation is not the vehicle to deal with that particular

point. I couldn't agree more with the Hon. Member. I think

there's definitely a feeling in this country right now that

we're being credit-carded to death. If you read the last

issue of the Financial Post , you see the elaborate plans

that the financial institutions have for our cashless society,

the interchange between Master Charge, Chargex, and their

lovely, intricate coding system....

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The price of convenience.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, the price of convenience. I'm telling

you, it blows the mind to read how elaborate these arrangements

are. I forget the figures, but it's millions and millions of

dollars it's going to cost to convert Master Charge and Chargex

into this new....

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: That's being paid for by the consumer, and

it's also being paid for, in my view, by the retailer, too.

They're getting nicked along with it.

I think that the Cashex is a good idea. I think definitely

there is a feeling right now that either the credit card holder

pays the difference — the 5 per cent or the 7 per cent or

4 per cent, or whatever — for the privilege of holding

that credit card, or, conversely, the cash-paying

consumer gets a decrease.

The Hon. André Ouellet has indicated that he has introduced

an amendment to this effect in the House of Commons whereby the

section of the contract between the retailer and the credit

card company forbidding that retailer to sell at a lesser price

will be outlawed. Now, hopefully, he delivers on that. I think

that's only a partial solution. So we may be able to do that;

it's definitely on our plate.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2711 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 79, Personal Information Reporting Amendment Act, 1975,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 82, Mr.

Speaker.

CREDIT UNIONS ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): In introducing

this bill, which will be examined

section by section, I would

just like to say a few words.

We have about 600,000 credit union members in the Province

of British Columbia. In Salmon Arm I think it was the

co-op that burned, not the credit union. Was that right,

Hon. Member?

There are 179 credit unions, and intensive work on this bill

has proceeded over a period of a year and a half, with

consultation from the credit union movement, with the

assistance of Dennis Sheppard, the Associate Deputy Minister in

my department, and Dick Monrufet the inspector. It is —

I believe I'm correct in saying it — acceptable to the

credit union movement, but at the same time the government,

representing the public interest and having a duty to ensure

that safety precautions exist in terms of members' deposits and

in terms of the democratic organization, have had a

considerable amount to say about the bill, too.

I seem to get into the habit of saying what's not in the

bill rather than what's in it, and I have to be very careful

there because the Speaker always watches me. But there's only

one kind of a thing that still bothers me in the credit union

field. We have, of course, the credit union reserve board,

which is an insurance inspection function for the savings of

the credit union members. Then we have in my department the

inspector of credit unions who is doing rather similar work in

terms of the inspection and auditing, where necessary, and the

safeguarding of assets when something can go wrong. They're

both doing rather the same sort of work, so that's a field

where I feel, in the next few months, that we should begin to

rationalize. When you have two inspection services there is a

danger that you can fall between the two stools, so I intend to

authorize a study in that area. I will try to find somebody; he

would need chartered accountant experience to conduct that

study.

I think that we will begin to bring more order and

more effective supervision as a result of a more unified

service in that field. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move

second reading.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a lengthy and complex bill. I'll just

put on record that my party will have more to say at the time of committee study.

We support the credit union movement and the excellent expansion it has made

in the financial affairs of British Columbia in the last few years. We look

forward to a rationalized Act which will study in detail later on.

Motion approved.

Bill 82, Credit Unions Act, read a second time and referred

to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to

permit debate in the Committee of Supply for the afternoon

sitting.

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, am I

to understand that we're functioning under the rules as they

were between 10 a.m. and 12?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: By leave.

ESTIMATES DEPARTMENT

OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 28: British Columbia Energy Commission, $911, 924

— continued.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, there were some questions raised

to the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) this

morning on which he might care to say something. I was

particularly interested in the questions relating to the supply

of crude for the prospective refinery. Do we have guaranteed

security of supply overland from Alberta whether the government

is or is not committed to a refinery? I heard the

Attorney-General say this morning: "Let's not commit

ourselves to a refinery." I wrote down his words. Yet is was my

understanding that the Premier had committed us to a refinery.

So I would be grateful if that could be straightened out.

I would ask him whether through any arm of the government

for which he is responsible, in particular the B.C. Petroleum

Corp., there are any exploration plans for oil or gas in

British Columbia directly by the government. He seemed very

optimistic this morning about the possibility of getting more

oil out of the ground in British Columbia. I was wondering if

[ Page 2712 ]

had exploration thoughts in the back of his mind on

this.

One other quick question with respect to the duties of the

B.C. Energy Commission: are they or are they not

contemplating undertaking a programme of monitoring progress in

nuclear power developments in Canada with an eye to having

expertise on line and available when the time comes for that

judgment to be made?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there's no commitment,

because it depends on the factors that were enumerated,

including supply. There's no commitment of supply at the

present time from the Province of Alberta, but friendly

discussions between fellow ideologues. It hasn't gone further

than that. There is no....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Exploration for oil? We had a meeting at

3 o'clock with the Canadian Petroleum Association and other

people. This is not natural gas; this is exploration for crude.

That's something under active....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In certain areas. Fields 1 and 2 are

basically oil-bearing, as the Member knows; he lives

there. You know more about it than I do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So there are things we are looking at in

the field of oil exploration and supply, things that may even

be the subject of legislation in this House. We've got lots of

time. Nobody's in any hurry.

Your final question was about nuclear.... No, we have no

studies in the field of nuclear energy at the present time in

the B.C. Energy Commission.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just briefly to follow up. Did I

hear the Attorney-General rightly when he was speaking of

exploration plans? He was talking about exploration plans by an

agency of the government?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I see. Well, perhaps you might clarify it, because that

was the understanding that came through. The other question I had also with

respect to the refinery: when the Attorney-General speaks of the need to secure

a supply, I understand that, of course. Is he suggesting to this House when

he mentions Alberta that the supply will be secured wholly from Canadian overland

sources rather than potential use of tanker? If that is indeed the case, will

it likely involve the diversion of Alberta crude currently going by the TransMountain

pipeline to the United States and therefore mean more tanker traffic coming

in in that area?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, of course the Hon. Donald

Macdonald has talked about curtailing exports to the United

States that would affect the TransMountain pipeline in time.

The amount of oil, apart from B.C. production, that would be

required for the refinery is not that much to basically affect

the tanker traffic in the straits.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Above our B.C. supply? I don't think it

will affect tanker traffic. But the curtailment of exports by

the federal government, with which the Hon. Member is

associated through party affiliation, may affect tanker traffic

in the Puget Sound, but I don't think the refinery will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it would draw on the transCanada

pipe to some extent.

MR. FRASER: I heard some discussion this morning that we

couldn't discuss the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I realize that but it's still under energy. I

just have a few questions I would like to ask regarding the

site of the proposed refinery.

They have said the sites are boiled down now to Surrey,

Merritt and Clinton. I would like to ask the Minister: does

that preclude anybody else from applying to have the proposed

refinery in their area?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Quesnel is not ruled out.

I am sorry that we passed the racing commission vote so

hurriedly when the Member was outside of the House.

MR. FRASER: I am sorry I missed the racing commission vote

too, but we were looking into the contents of alcohol in this

province at another meeting, again under your jurisdiction.

That's why I couldn't be here.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to ask one or two specific figures

on this whole question of the refinery

[ Page

2713 ]

and to try and confirm some information that I have been

given specifically to try and clarify whether a refinery is

justified in the first place.

The government has succeeded in creating a tremendous amount

of confusion in the public's mind. At the energy conference the

Premier, in a burst of enthusiasm or a burst of something,

quite definitively said that we will have a refinery in B.C. I

don't know if Hansard works at the energy conferences

but I am sure it's there in the transcript. Since then we have

had all kinds of perambulations by different Members of

government, including the Attorney-General as recently as

today saying: "Let's not commit ourselves." We have the Premier

talking about a trip to the United Kingdom which will involve

what he calls "crucial decisions" about a refinery. We have had

numerous questions asked about a supply of crude oil, and

that's really never been satisfactorily answered.

I would like to ask a specific question of the Minister. Is

it correct that Imperial Oil has a new refinery coming on

stream in Edmonton with the effectiveness to refine 200,000

barrels a day and that even Imperial Oil is closing its

Winnipeg, Calgary and Saskatoon refineries because it can

effectively and economically work through the new Edmonton

refinery rather than have three other smaller refineries in

these other cities? If that is the case, has the government

adequately researched the impact of this new Imperial Oil

refinery in Edmonton in relation to the economic viability or

necessity involving...I think the figure that Mr. Rhodes

quoted at one time publicly was $375 million of capital

investment right here in B.C.?

Now if that basic economic question can't be answered, I

really have to wonder why the government is persisting with

giving so much public comment from cabinet Ministers and the

Premier himself to an issue which is so very tentative and

maybe even unrealistic in the light of the factor that I have

mentioned about the tremendous expansion of the oil refinery in

Edmonton. When we consider how often the opposition parties

have wondered about certain items of government expenditure in

other areas, I think we are justified in asking for more

specific information about this proposed oil refinery or

possible oil refinery here in British Columbia. And when you

add to that economic uncertainty or the uncertainty as to

whether it is feasible or desirable, we have the other issue of

environmental impact and the tremendous concern expressed by

people — legitimately, I believe — in the Surrey

area as to whether the environmental impact would not be most

undesirable.

So, Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to ask the Minister is whether we couldn