1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hospital bed shortage. Mr. Cocke –– 5572

Health hazard of herbicide chemicals. Mr. Skelly –– 5572

Use of herbicide chemicals by summer students. Mr. Lauk –– 5573

Government aircraft flights to Kamloops. Hon. Mr. Phillips replies –– 5573

Health hazard at Alcan smelter. Mr. Howard –– 5573

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

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5575

Mr. Howard

On vote 66: executive management –– 5576

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 66 –– 5576

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment

On vote 67: finance and administration branch –– 5578

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 67 –– 5579

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment

On vote 68: British Columbia Utilities Commission –– 5579

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 68 –– 5581

Mr. D'Arcy

Division on the amendment

On vote 69: energy resources branch –– 5583

Mr. D'Arcy

Division on an amendment

On vote 70: mineral resources branch –– 5585

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 70 –– 5585

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Division on the amendment

On vote 70: mineral resources branch –– 5585

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Kempf

On vote 72: resource access program –– 5586

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Segarty

On vote 74: building occupancy charges –– 5587

Mr. D'Arcy

Division on an amendment

On vote 75: computer and consulting charges –– 5587

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 75 –– 5588

Mr. Lorimer

Division on the amendment

Committee Of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 54: minister's office –– 5588

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Lauk

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the

government, this assembly and all peoples of British Columbia are

shocked and saddened by reports today of the senseless attack on Pope

John Paul II. It defies sanity that this gentle and loved spiritual

leader who has devoted his life to the cause of peace in the world

should be felled by bullets. This morning the following telegram was

sent to His Excellency the Most Reverend Angelo Palmas, Pronuncio of

the Holy See to Canada, in Ottawa.

IT IS WITH PROFOUND SHOCK THAT WE LEARNED THIS MORNING OF THE

TRAGIC INCIDENT INVOLVING HIS HOLINESS. ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE

CITIZENS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, WE WISH YOU TO KNOW THAT ALL OUR THOUGHTS AND

OUR PRAYERS ARE WITH HIS HOLINESS AT THIS TIME.

Mr.

Speaker, I say for all British Columbians that our prayers and our

thoughts are for and will continue to be for His Holiness' recovery and

for the further recovery of the two bystanders who were wounded at the

same time. Our prayers and thoughts are also for our world, that it may

become that which Pope John Paul II and all of us wish it to be:

peaceful, tolerant and devoid of such acts of violence. I would request

that these sentiments and remarks and those of the official opposition

be conveyed by you, sir, to the Vatican.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition wants to join with the

expressions of the Premier and associate ourselves with them completely

and thoroughly. We join with people all over the world in expressing

our most deeply felt and spiritual regrets at this attack on His

Holiness Pope John Paul II. It's a senseless attempt, we feel,

reflecting sadness in the world. We pray along with the Premier and

others for his recovery and for those other two who were innocent

bystanders. We regret very much that this attempt was made on the life

of a person who in our time is truly a prince of peace. We hope that

the expression indicated by the Premier will be sent immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: It will be done.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

The introduction I have is actually a very happy one, but one can't

help but be sorry that it coincides with the sad news we've received.

Perhaps in a sense it's also appropriate.

It's my pleasure to advise the House that in the gallery today are four

members of the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia: Mr. Robin Draper,

the coordinator; Mr. Craig Sky, vice-chairman; Mr. Afan Jones; and Mr. Bill

Shields. It's interesting to note that this council, the architects of the

outdoor recreation map of British Columbia that you have so graciously allowed

us to present to the House today, Mr. Speaker, are unique in Canada. With their

spirit of coordination and love for the outdoors and desire to share it, they

have worked with many of the ministries in British Columbia and with the assistance

of a TIDSA grant to put together a series of outdoor recreation maps. The first

is the one that you are being presented with today, which represents the Cariboo

area. Further areas in the series will include Whistler, Garibaldi and Windermere

Lakes in the Columbia Valley.

You'll

notice there is a price tag on these of $3.95. These good people have

worked together to produce a product that we hope will be

self-sufficient in its financial abilities and that will also carry

forth the spirit of British Columbia and the snowmobile association in

sharing the opportunity for visitors and our own citizens to have safer

and more properly guided trips and knowledge of outdoor activities in

our province.

Before I ask you to join me in welcoming them,

I would just like to point out and express your appreciation to the

B.C. Snow Vehicles Association, of which Mr. Shields is the

secretary-manager. These people have themselves become hospitality

people in British Columbia. They now have a one-stop call. Visitors or

citizens alike who wish to take

part in recreational snowmobiling in

British Columbia can plug into the system. While they pay their way,

they are adopted by the local associations, who volunteer to act as

guides and hostesses. In this way they have opened up a totally new

area of recreation for handicapped people in British Columbia, and for

people who are interested in photography and birdwatching in the

wintertime, which they couldn't enjoy before. In expressing your thanks

to them, may I also ask you to give them a very warm welcome to

encourage them in their efforts.

MR. SPEAKER: Before

we proceed, I would like to remind the hon. minister that, although her

guests are most welcome to the chamber and the expression of the House

would be accepted as such, nonetheless, the purpose of introductions is

not to make lengthy speeches or to introduce to the House items which

could be considered of commercial value. Therefore I would remind all

hon. members to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I was one step away from the door and missed prayers this

afternoon, so I was unable to share them with my good friend Rabbi

Solomon from the synagogue of Beth Israel, a man of non-violence who is

devoted to his community. I would ask the House to thank the rabbi for

coming here today.

Also, I'd like to congratulate a man who is 39 years old today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you.

MR. LEA: We mean chronologically.

MR. LAUK: This gentleman is in the press gallery and has been working here for many years.

MR. MACDONALD: Jim Hume?

MR. LEA: He said "working."

MR. LAUK: Would the House congratulate Barry Bell of the CBC.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join me in congratulating one

of our members today for being inducted into the B.C. Sports Hall of

Fame. At a luncheon today it was announced that Hon. Jack Davis, as a

member of the 1936 UBC basketball team, was named to the Hall of Fame.

I would ask all members to join me in congratulating the member, who is

on his way to the assembly now.

[ Page 5572 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to ask the House to welcome

a good friend, a Yorkshire farmer from the Yorkshire wolds, Mr. Arthur

Connor, and his cousin, Mr. William Clarkson, one of my constituents

and an escapee from the same place.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr.

Speaker, at the outset I join the hon. the Minister of Tourism in

welcoming Bill Shields to the assembly. Bill is from Prince George

originally, where all the good guys come from. But specifically I'd

like the House to welcome in the galleries today Mr. Joe Ter Heide, Bob

Hoffstrom, Rick Guerrier and Mike Maddigan. They're representatives

from Prince George and they're with HUDAC, the Housing and Urban

Development Association of Canada.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add on behalf of my colleague from

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) our very warm appreciation

of the presence of Rabbi Wilfred Solomon, and to thank him for his

thoughtful address and prayer to our assembly today.

I would

also like to ask our House to join in welcoming a group of young people

who are here in the gallery. They have visited other areas around the

precinct this morning and are visiting our legislative session today.

They are representing the classes of grade 10 and grade 8 from York

House School, and I know that the House will be pleased to welcome such

a nice group of young people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce anybody in the

gallery who might be visiting here from New Zealand. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, my niece, Lisa Purdy, is on her first

visit to Victoria, the capital city, today. I promised her mother that

I would stand in this House and embarrass her by introducing her, so that her

name can also appear. She's one of the York House girls. Would the House

please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL BED SHORTAGE

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question directed to the Minister of Health. In

the early hours of Saturday, May 9, a constituent of the minister was

stricken with a seizure related to cancer of the brain. The ambulance,

which arrived at his home at 1:30 a.m., took this gentleman to the

Richmond General Hospital as an emergency patient. They were told there

were no vacant beds so they had to try elsewhere. The ambulance next

took him to the Vancouver General, which could not admit him to their

emergency ward either. Recalling that he was picked up at 1:30 a.m.,

finally at 5:30 a.m. he was admitted to the emergency ward at the

Shaughnessy Hospital. Is the minister willing to explain to this victim

and to this House that there is something a little bit more than a

jam-up in our situation?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members,

in framing questions I would trust that the purpose of the question

would be to seek an answer and not to bring information to the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd be pleased to look into this specific situation

the member has related to the House. Possibly it would assist if the member

could provide me with the name of the patient. I'd be pleased to look into

it.

MR. COCKE: I'll certainly do that, and I could give a number of them, as the minister himself probably can.

The

question really surrounds the subject where the minister was recently

quoted as saying that there was a jam-up, but nothing really serious

and not really an emergency. Has the minister now decided to view the

hospital situation as an emergent situation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

In response to earlier questions last week by members in the House,

officials within the ministry are conducting inquiries with various

hospitals as to their difficulties in admitting patients in the acute

wards, emergency wards or other wards. It's difficult to determine,

based on one unfortunate and tragic situation, precisely where the

problems may be. As I said to the member, I'll be pleased to look into

that one specific case, if he could confidentially supply me with the

name of the patient, and find out why this particular situation

occurred. We'd be pleased also to look into other individual

situations. It would be impossible to anticipate the requirements of an

emergency case in advance and have facilities standing by for that

situation. That which is made available to people in British Columbia

is still at a very high standard, recognizing that there are always

going to be specific incidents where the service is less than

satisfactory or less than the individual would desire.

MR. COCKE:

I gather the minister hasn't seen the gravity of the situation. The

fact is that there were two emergency wards in Vancouver closed down

that night. My question is: has the minister any idea what's going on

in the hospital situation in this Province?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The answer is yes. Not only is the minister aware of what's going on in

the hospitals, but people within the ministry are aware and certainly

hospital administers and officials within those hospitals are aware.

Since this occurred May 9, there have only been a few days.... I would

appreciate receiving the name of the patient. If the member were

reluctant to provide that to me, I could indeed inquire directly to the

hospital.

MR. COCKE: You will have it in seconds.

HEALTH HAZARD OF HERBICIDE CHEMICALS

MR. SKELLY:

My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. The IWA local in

Port Alberni, based on extensive research into the health effect of

herbicide chemicals including 2, 4-D, has advised their employer that

IWA members will no longer handle or apply these chemicals used in the

forest for weed or tree control. MacMillan Bloedel's forestry

operations in the area have now made it a condition of employment that

new employees, including summer students, agree to handle these very

same dangerous chemicals. Has the minister investigated this problem to

determine whether or not this practice discriminates against new

employees? Will he agree to investigate this to see whether it violates

the provision of the Labour Code or fair employment practices

legislation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This problem has not been brought to my attention, but I will certainly take the question on notice. I'll look for Hansard later this afternoon so I have the context of the question, and I'll report back to the House.

[ Page

5573 ]

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary question on the same subject to the Minister of Health. The IWA was....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A supplementary question would ordinarily be addressed to the same minister.

MR. LAUK: It's a new question on the same subject. It's customary to allow the same subject to be canvassed.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, I would have had to ask the member for

Central Fraser Valley to defer and would gladly have done so had it

been a supplementary question.

MR. RITCHIE: In the

absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), I direct my

question to the NDP energy critic, the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy). Has the NDP adopted a policy on nuclear power?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, in the tradition of the House, a question has been

permitted on rare occasions directed to the Leader of the Opposition.

But in this House questions to another member of the House have on no

occasion been permitted unless they are to the Chairman of a committee.

MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it proper that I address my question to the member who is the acting leader of the NDP?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware of any acting Leader of the Opposition.

USE OF HERBICIDE CHEMICALS

BY SUMMER STUDENTS

MR. LAUK: I have a question for

the Minister of Health on the issue of the use of dangerous chemicals

by IWA employees. Through independent research, evidently, the IWA has

found that these chemicals are deleterious to the health of their

members, and has advised their members that they should refuse the use

or handling of these things. Yet by making it a condition of

employment, MacMillan Bloedel is forcing summer students to use

dangerous chemicals. I ask the Minister of Health: will he intervene to

prevent MacMillan Bloedel from forcing summer students to use dangerous

chemicals that could well be deleterious to their health?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is whether he has intervened, it is in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice, since I didn't hear

all of it. I believe it was originally addressed to one of the other

ministers. But I'll look into that and respond.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

FLIGHTS TO KAMLOOPS

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), I'd like to answer a question posed to him

in the House yesterday by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). This was the

question: "I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Given that three government aircraft arrived at Kamloops airport on Saturday,

May 9, 1981...?" I'd like to inform the House that first of all

the member is absolutely wrong, as he is wrong on every occasion and with every

question he raises in this House. Only one government plane arrived in Kamloops

on May 9, not three, as the member insinuated. That is from the dispatchers

at the airport. I suppose the member will try and say the dispatchers are wrong

in their information.

The

other innuendo that the member for Atlin tried to state in this House

is: "Will the minister indicate to the House the names of those persons

of the Social Credit Party who have been flown in and out of Kamloops

on government aircraft during the by-election so far?" I'd like to say

that according to dispatch records there have been no members of the

Social Credit Party flown in or out of Kamloops since the beginning of

April until last night. That's more innuendo and half-truth of the sort

the member seems to thrive on.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister please confine his remarks to the answers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to say further that not only were

there no members of the Social Credit Party, but there were no

unauthorized persons flown in on a government aircraft to Kamloops.

There were no campaign workers, and there were no volunteers. By

innuendo and half-truth, that member is continually trying to mislead

this House. To that party over there, half-truth and lies are like

spinach is to Popeye. It gives them vim and vigour.

HEALTH HAZARD AT ALCAN SMELTER

MR. HOWARD: At the end of the question period I'll raise a point of order about the use of the word "lie" by the minister, Mr. Speaker.

I'd

like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. About two weeks

ago, I asked the Minister of Labour what steps he was going to take

regarding the health hazards to employees in Alcan aluminum smelter in

Kitimat. The minister took that question as notice and hasn't bothered

to come back to the House yet. So I'd like to ask the minister this: in

view of the fact that the UBC study into health hazards at that smelter

found that workers were exposed to multiple contaminants such as

benzopyrene, fluorides — both gaseous and particulate — and chlorine,

will the minister tell the House now whether he has decided to direct

the Workers' Compensation Board to take immediate steps to see that

these contaminants are eliminated and the health of the employees thus

protected?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To answer the member, I

have been accumulating the material so that I could provide a full

answer to the member in the House. I have some of the material in my

office now, and I am still waiting for a couple of other items which

are outstanding. I've given the undertaking to report. I might say to

the member that that particular report commissioned by the WCB is being

farmed out to other areas where there is expertise with respect to the

problem at hand. I am also advised that the company has been incurring

substantial capital expenditures to handle some of those contaminants

in the air along the plot lines. I certainly will reply, but I haven't

got all the information I require to reply.

MR. HOWARD:

Can I ask the minister a supplemental question? Obviously he has

discussed this question with the WCB and with Alcan. Am I correct in

assuming that he has discussed this with the Aluminum Company of Canada?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I have discussed the problem with Alcan. As a matter of fact, I had contact with them

[ Page 5574 ]

the afternoon your question was raised. I asked for a report, and it came.

MR. HOWARD: Did you discuss it with CASAW, the union?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I have not.

MR. HOWARD: Why not? What's the matter with you? Ignoring the health of workers up there. You won't even talk to the union.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, because I had a question that

I wished to ask during question period to the Leader of the Opposition,

recognizing on occasion that because of a question of serious nature

the Leader of the Opposition could be questioned. It dealt with the

question of a meeting in 1979 between Mr. Barrett, the Leader of the

Opposition, and Governor Hammond, with regard to statements made by the

member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell).

However, I cannot ask that

question, and I rise on this point of order. Standing order 8 states

that every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless

leave of absence has been given to him by the House. I can tell you

that on a number of occasions the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk), who is affectionately known on this side of the House as

Kermit the frog.... I would just like to ask the Speaker if it's

appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to be in New Zealand at a

time when serious matters of this province require his attention in the

House. Has he been excused?

MR. SPEAKER: From time to

time various members have sought under standing order 8 to question the

attendance or otherwise of members in this House. The Chair has

steadfastly suggested that attendance in the House is required, but the

Chair cannot possibly determine whether or not that attendance is

exact, because attendance in the precinct itself would be considered to

be attendance of the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) answered a question and referred to

documents. I would ask that those documents be tabled with the Clerks

of the House, pursuant to the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER:

Whenever documents are quoted in the House, tabling is suggested.

Whenever they are referred to or summarized, then, of course, they

cannot be asked to be tabled. We'll have to leave it to the discretion

of the minister.

MR. LAUK: The rule is that any

documents read, referred to or used in support of a speech must be

tabled in the House. Any documents quoted or any documents that have

been used as evidence to support a speech must be tabled. It is at the

discretion of the minister to table documents merely referred to. This

minister used the documents to support an answer, and we want to know

whether he was telling the truth. Would he table the documents?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. All members will please be seated. I will find the

proper citation for the first member for Vancouver Centre and have it

on his desk in a few moments.

MR. HOWARD: On a point

of order that I alluded to during question period, the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development, in answering a question in the

House, clearly said members on this side of the House lied. That was

well heard by everybody, and he should not be permitted by the Chair to

get away with that sort of falsehood.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear that word.

MR. HOWARD: It's appropriate to his style and his manner of smearing everybody, but he shouldn't be able to get away with it.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair did not hear the word. I was undoubtedly using the gavel at

the time. However, I would ask the minister, if he used the word "lie,"

to withdraw it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not about the member, Mr. Speaker; about the party.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister please withdraw the word.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

If I said anything that offended the members opposite I'd be most happy

to withdraw, and just say that the people of British Columbia are very

fortunate to have that member in the House and not in a classroom

polluting the minds of the students in Atlin.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the minister withdraw the word "lie."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I thought I did. Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister withdraws the word "lie."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Unequivocally.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

On the point of order that I raised earlier, Mr. Speaker, you have

indicated to us that members considered in the precincts of this House

are considered in the House, or words to that effect. Mr. Speaker, the

Leader of the Opposition is in New Zealand. It's a publicly known fact.

He held a meeting; the number of people that did or didn't show up is

immaterial. But as I understand it rule 8 says that unless leave of

absence has been given to him by the House.... I seek your direction,

Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is absent. Has he been

excused?

MR. SPEAKER: I will inquire of House Leaders

on both sides to see whether or not arrangements had been made. If they

have been, to my satisfaction, I'll carry that information to the House.

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health was

politicking in Kamloops all day. The House gave him no permission, to

my understanding. I would ask that you include that in this question

that's being researched through the members.

[ Page

5575 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Are we going to move to orderly business soon?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to advise the Chair

that I was in Kamloops yesterday at the Ponderosa Lodge inspecting the

facilities there along with the administrator of the lodge and

representatives from the Ministry of Health in Kamloops. They have

advised that they wish to see some resolution to a longstanding problem

in the Ponderosa Lodge. I do not resent the member for New Westminster

saying that I was politicking there, but I think the residents of the

lodge would.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We have reached beyond the point of the point of order. We are now debating a statement made in the House.

MR. RITCHIE:

I, too, rise on a point of order to seek your guidance, sir. Apparently

last night the NDP candidate stated that he favoured nuclear power. In

the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to know who I may

direct my question to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

The first member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor on a question of privilege.

MR. LAUK:

The question of privilege is briefly stated as follows. Obviously there

are some members of the House who wish to misuse standing orders. I am

not saying....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I

point out to Mr. Speaker that irrespective of the side of the House

from which those abuses of standing orders arise, it breeds disrespect

for the rules and disrespect for the Chair. That offends my privileges

as a member here who wishes to get on with the orderly business of the

House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will proceed to business in an orderly fashion.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I used to say when I took Latin II: "Mirabile dictu."

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday there were a few questions asked of me which I

wouldn't mind answering. I promised the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) some figures on the costs of electricity and the export

charges for hydro power. It's difficult to come up with exact figures,

because they vary so much with each sale almost. But I certainly

wouldn't come up with a figure of $2 billion, which is the only figure

the member for Atlin seems to know. I did promise I'd come up with

these figures.

On the wholesale price, which is our average

industrial bulk rate, the average price for surplus power exported is

just about twice — that's a ball-park figure — the cost of the average

industrial bulk rate in the province. In 1978-79 it averaged about 1.15

for industrial rates in British Columbia, compared to about 2.36 for

sales to the United States. In 1979-80 it was about 1.3 for industrial

rates in British Columbia compared to about 3.5 for sales to the United

States — this is kilowatt hours. So we get a considerable advantage

over those sales.

The other important aspect to remember, of

course, is that all our exports under the NEB export licence are only

approved on an interruptible basis — except the two I mentioned

yesterday in Hyder, Alaska, and Point Roberts, Washington, where we

have committed to supply power. Of course, that means that we can cut

off the supply at an hour's notice if that supply is needed either for

ourselves or for other Canadian users, primarily Alberta. So I hope

that helps the member a bit.

I also want to answer a couple

of questions that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) asked. He

was talking about the energy film and whether or not.... He said he

wouldn't ask any more questions if I would promise to take

responsibility for that film. So in order to save the House any further

questions from that member, I'd be glad to take responsibility for that

film. It was done by the Ministry of Energy, and all responsibility is

the Ministry of Energy's.

There were some questions about

taking polls to find out whether or not people appreciated the message

given in that film. I guess everybody takes polls, Mr. Chairman, from

time to time. I notice there is a poll going on in Auckland, New

Zealand, right now. The sales marketing executives international are

doing a market research program to discover why only seven people out

of 2,000 invited came to a dinner for the honourable Dave Barrett, the

Leader of the Opposition. I suppose we take polls for different

reasons. Mr. Chairman, but the magnificent seven that turned out last

night are at least going to get their money back. That's not what

usually happens.

I don't know how you go about asking

questions from this side to the other side, Mr. Chairman, but I think

there is an important question to be asked by the people of British

Columbia to the official opposition, which has consistently, in this

House at least, indicated that it is opposed to nuclear power in this

province. I don't know whether that's still a policy or whether the

policy has changed on the opposite side of the House, but if there is a

way the first question I'd ask is: is the official opposition opposed

to nuclear power generation in this province? If it is, why was the New

Democratic candidate in Kamloops saying last night at an all-candidates

meeting that he is in favour of nuclear power for British Columbia. He

spoke last night at an all-candidates meeting sponsored by the Hat

Creek Coalition and said yes, he was in favour of nuclear power for

British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether he's speaking for that

party and whether or

[ Page 5576 ]

not there is a policy on behalf of the official opposition that they're trying to hide.

MR. HOWARD:

Inasmuch as the Chair permitted the minister to engage in some

discussion about events in New Zealand, let me put the facts on the

record to show that once again the minister hasn't the foggiest idea

what he's talking about; or if he does, he's telling another distorted

bit of information to the committee.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, really? Tell us about it.

MR. HOWARD: Really! He's holding up a piece of paper. I could suggest to you what you do with that piece of paper.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What?

MR. HOWARD: It would be quite appropriate to your style.

Mr.

Chairman, that newspaper clipping which the minister is holding up and

waving around is a false report of what took place. It's a lie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: Do you want me to say that?

When

Mr. Barrett arrived in New Zealand he was advised that a private group

was attempting to arrange an all-party meeting, the speakers from

Labour, National and the Social Credit parties. That was not on Mr.

Barrett's itinerary. He refused to attend. He said: "I can't attend. It

had nothing to do with the New Zealand Labour Party." Because this

group of Social Credit friends in New Zealand hadn't been able to

attract anybody to it, the proposed seminar had been cancelled before

Mr. Barrett got there.

But it is in keeping with the

desperation on the part of Social Credit opposite, and particularly

this minister, who will grab anything and take it as gospel so long as

it smears somebody else. That's a despicable act on the minister's

part, but quite in keeping with his normal manner of dealing with

things, like telling falsehoods at every opportunity he gets the chance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: That word, Mr. Chairman, should not have escaped my lips; it was in my heart but it should not have come out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member withdraws.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I guess all many of us can do is respond to what we read

in the paper. On the opposite side of the House we often find that most

of the questions in question period are posed as a result of newspaper

articles. The story says it was a big luncheon with a B.C. star, but

nobody came, and now they're doing a marketing survey to find out why.

I'm just interested whether or not the member said what I thought I

heard him say. Did he say that Mr. Barrett was not in New Zealand with

anything to do with the Labour Party?

MR. HOWARD: Dig the wax out of your ears. You understood what I said.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Okay. Well, I would like you to know that the newspaper

article — and I

think the people of B.C. should understand this — says that sales

marketing international sent out 2,000 tickets and spent $1,000 in

Canadian money for a luncheon debate between local political heavies

and B.C. opposition leader Dave Barrett. About 16 people called to ask

about the dinner and about seven decided to come. Sponsors had to

cancel the lunch, pay back the money and then start the market research

to discover why the program bombed.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I

don't suppose there is much sense in saying anything more than that,

except that we all take our market research for different purposes. I

hope they're successful in finding out why no one wanted to see the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must remind the committee that we are on vote 65.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We don't have one.

MR. HOWARD: As the government is not prepared to proceed with business, I move the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived.

Vote 65 approved.

On vote 66: executive management, $1,120,071.

MR. D’ARCY:

Vote 66, we note, the executive management branch, is a vote which has

increased between the two budgets — last year's and this year's, Mr.

Chairman. If the committee passes it as it presently is constituted,

it's a vote which has increased by the amount of some $600,000. We note

that some $220,000 of this increase in an advertising increase. I'm not

saying it is only $220,000 to be spent on advertising under this vote;

I am saying that that is the amount by which the minister intends to

increase this vote. We also find that the minister is hoping to get

committee approval to increase the professional services part of this

vote by an amount of $96,000.

In view of the abysmal

failures of this minister in formulating policy and his even greater

failure in attempting to buy professional services to articulate this

policy throughout the media, I am left with no recourse but to move

that vote 66 be reduced by the amount of $378,550, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order, hon. members.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly speaking out against the amendment and,

frankly, I think perhaps I might just mention or touch upon the purpose

of this particular vote, which is in part to provide the citizens of

British Columbia with information regarding the many good efforts of

the ministry to promote good use of energy and to utilize our resources

well. Perhaps there are a number of ways in which we can do this, not

the least of which is when we as individuals in government travel

throughout the province and attend various meetings and are given the

op-

[ Page

5577 ]

portunity of explaining programs and the problems

as they exist, and how they might best be addressed to the various

groups in all of the communities. The people have a right to know. The

people deserve to know. The people must know. I think it's only right

that the people hear and receive this information from us in all forms

possible. Again, as I said, perhaps we can all, as members of the House

and of different political parties, do a good job in presenting it

personally at the various meetings we have the opportunity of attending.

That

brings me to a very important point. Certainly there has been

discussion from time to time in this House with respect to statements

which have been made by a member who is now affectionately known as

"Nuclear Nic" or "Nic the Nuke," the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson), who in the past certainly has come out very openly in favour

of the use of nuclear energy as a means of generating power in British

Columbia. As I understand it, that certainly has been stated and

restated by the member at various times. As of late — certainly during

the last several years when we've been discussing the mining of uranium

and the use of nuclear energy as an alternative — these sorts of

statements which have been previously made have in more recent times

been denied.

I think the populace of British Columbia has a

right to know that — it's a part of the information program that the

people should be involved with — the impression was left last night, as

I understand it, at a public meeting in Kamloops by the candidate for

the New Democratic Party that he supports the use of nuclear power to

create energy in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, while the Chair appreciates the point the

member is trying to make, it's very difficult for the Chair to relate,

under this specific vote, which is executive management —

notwithstanding the member's attempt to relate it through the necessity

for advertising.... I feel that while the need for advertising may be

canvassed, the issues for which that need would arise would be very

difficult to canvass in this vote, or we would be opening the whole

argument all over again. I must ask the member to be more specific on

vote 66.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I sat in

my seat and I heard the critic for the opposition introduce the

amendment which would reduce the available money for the ministry,

specifically to advertising. It was his opinion that the vote could be

reduced because of the amount allotted to advertising. The record will

show this very clearly. It's based upon that that I make this argument.

As I said, certainly we can do advertising by way of the media. We can

similarly advertise by getting out there as individuals and talking to

the various community groups throughout the province, telling them what

our stand is on the various problems. Certainly the provision of energy

is one of those. This is why I think this is most appropriate.

I might mention, too, it's rather ironic that at this time, when there

ought to be a great awareness in the province by all the people about the need

to conserve energy, the possibilities for developing alternatives, the use of

resources and how they might best be used for the benefit of all the people,

the critic for the opposition should deny the people this knowledge by cutting

back on what I deem to be one of the most important parts of government — that

is informing the people of what we stand for and propose to do. That immediately

again relates back to the statement made in Kamloops by a candidate at a time

when the whole of the party on the other side — the New Democrats — are concentrating

on that area in terms of presenting to the populace their stance on the various

issues. I need to know, as a citizen of British Columbia, whether in fact —

not only I, but my family, my friends and everyone everywhere need to know —

the position of the New Democratic Party is that they support nuclear energy.

These

charges have been made in the past. The member for Nelson-Creston has

been accused of this, and there's been nothing to refute it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order. please, hon. member. Again, the first part of the member's

address was in order, but at this point I must say that it is virtually

impossible for the Chair to relate the current remarks of the minister

to vote 66. I must ask the minister to return to the amendment to vote

66 which is presently before us, which deals exclusively with the

articles that are listed in the member's estimate book.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman. perhaps all I can say in conclusion, then, is that I

cannot support the amendment. Certainly this is a part of the vote, and

specific reference was made to it. I'm sure this must be in order. As a

government, we have a position on the use of energy. We know, certainly

— and we ought to advise all of the people — that our position on

nuclear energy is that there's no place in British Columbia for it. We

should advise the people of this. Similarly, with respect to mining for

uranium, our position has been made clear. The hon. minister asked the

question of the other side as to what their position was. No answer was

given. I guess they're going to remain silent on this, and perhaps

that's the answer. They don't have a position. As a government, we have

the responsibility of making the populace aware. Certainly I cannot

support the amendment which would deny the people this right.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm sure the minister would be supported in his position by Doug Heal

and those Hollywood artists as well. They're the type of people who

just love to get their hands on S20 million in the estimates, scattered

throughout to propagandize.

That Minister of Energy. Mines

and Petroleum Resources and the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie) have proven today that they will take any situation and, in

their desperation, twist and distort it to suit their own needs,

desires and hopes. That's exactly what they've done. They were

permitted to make reference to an event, which apparently took place

last evening. Let me set forward what happened as a result of a

telephone conversation with the person you have just sought to malign

for your own cheap political advantage in Kamloops. That's what you

sought to do: malign an individual who's a candidate and distort the

position of that candidate. You guys can't play it straight even if you

try.

Mr. Dack attended a forum last evening and put forward

the proposition that British Columbia should very carefully consider

whether the Socred–B.C. Hydro proposal for Hat Creek is best for the

province; he asked for very careful consideration of that, because of

the potential of acid rain emanating from that particular project. Mr.

Dack pointed out that new technology was becoming available. He used as

an example of new technology that might be looked at something once

called the B.C. Research Council, which was

[ Page 5578 ]

partly

funded by this Legislature and by budgetary items that we have already

dealt with and passed, under the Ministry of Universities, Science and

Communications. The funding of the B.C. Research Council was provided

to examine fusion — not fission but fusion — nuclear technology. He

said that inasmuch as the Social Credit government is funding B.C.

Research to do that, that's new technology that should be looked at. He

was specifically asked at the meeting whether he supported nuclear

power, and he clearly said no.

Then we find today these

purveyors of smear-at-every-opportunity rising desperately in this

House in an attempt, as I said, to grab something in Kamloops tomorrow.

It's a sad shame. I thought better of the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). That he would stoop to the same level as the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in this regard, and

to the level of the member for Central Fraser Valley....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I know you guys don't like the truth when you hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Shall we address the Chair'?

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I know those guys and gals over there don't like the

truth when they hear it. They just love to distort, twist and hold up

pieces of paper — as the member for Central Fraser Valley is now doing.

He was the person specifically responsible for misusing public funds so

their own Social Credit caucus research bureau could send out lies

about members of the opposition. The member for Central Fraser Valley

is suspect when it comes to talking about truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again I must ask that we return to the amendment on vote 66 before us.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 25

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Mussallem

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

Vote 66 approved.

On vote 67: finance and administration branch, $1,470,565.

MR. D'ARCY: Once again we find that the increases under this particular

vote for such capacities as....

MR. MUSSALLEM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the

interesting fact that I was on the front steps, just at the door, and I

heard no sound of the bells. I should have heard the sound within the

building, but I heard no sound. I was speaking to the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who states that the bell rang very

intermittently in his office. I believe that we should bear in mind at

this time that members are not hearing these bells. There's a question

of doubt that they're ringing in various offices, and I would like to

bring to your attention that no vote is decisive if the bells are not

rung. I bring it to the floor that I may object at any time if I'm not

satisfied the bells have been heard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well taken. It is a most serious matter, and will be looked into by the Chair.

MR. D'ARCY: I would agree that for a Whip of a party with a three-seat

majority, particularly in view of the fact that throughout most of yesterday

there were only two or three of them in the House.... They seem to show

up at convening time and disrupt the procedures of the House with frivolous

points of order and then disappear for the day. That poor member for Dewdney

had to spend a great deal of his time going out beating the bushes in order

to try to find a few people to people the treasury benches. In particular the

Minister of Municipal Affairs was not in the House all day. I don't know

what he was doing; he certainly wasn't working. The Minister of Agriculture

and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) was not in the House all day. He certainly wasn't

working. In fact there were only two members at various points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 67.

MR. D'ARCY: You're quite right, Mr. Chairman, on to vote 67.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. One of the things we have to do on

this side of the House in order to make sure there's an accurate record

of proceedings here is to call the occasional division for the purposes of a

little exactness in terms of the amounts the government intends to spend on

what we think are, in some cases, frivolous items. Of course one of the motions

moved yesterday was moved by my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber), who was forced to move that the Chairman do now leave the chair because

there were only three members. The poor Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources had to hold the fort all by himself against this overwhelming opposition

over here, so my colleague had to move such a motion.

[ Page 5579 ]

any event, without further ado, in view of the increases in this

particular vote, which have been totally unjustified by statements made

in the House by either the minister or any of his colleagues or by any

actions they have taken during the past year, we wish to move that the

amount of vote 67 be reduced by $183,903. I would point out that once

again this does not restrict the government in terms of the things they

were attempting to do last year — with very limited success, I would

point out. We are granting them the same amount of money as they had

last year, and we're hoping that the minister, if he is capable of

learning something about administration, will make better use of these

funds this year in his administrative capacity as Minister of Energy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order, hon. members.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD:

I just want to point out to the committee that under this finance and

administration branch you sure know how to pad the accounts. The

minister sure learned how to build up the funds — or he sure knows how

to spend money for propagandizing. Last year all he wanted for

advertising was $465; this year he wants $14,250. That's something like

a 3,000 percent increase — a tremendous waste of money. All those guys

are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is justify that onerous tax increase on

people, and they're padding the accounts every which way they can in

order to build up the expenditure side, either to propagandize us or to

save the $250 for actual advertising and use the $14,000 to employ a

couple of other Hollywood artists to tell them how to do it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, these guys are harder on me than Treasury Board is. I

just want to point out that you can't just say "advertising" — it's

advertising and publications.

I might say that we're having

extreme difficulty, not only in this ministry but in almost every other

ministry, attracting people to come to B.C. from other parts of Canada,

because of some very serious problems we have. When someone wants to

move we can offer him an extremely attractive job, but there are

problems in remortgaging houses. Someone may be buying a house with an

11 percent mortgage, and they have to sell their house, come back and

pick up a mortgage for 15 or 16 percent. So we've had to increase our

recruiting campaign a tremendous amount in order to get scarce

professional employees. We're also competing for employees with the

energy industry, which is an extremely lucrative industry in the

private sector. We must do everything we can to attract the best

possible professionals to our province in order that we can cope with

the demands that we have in the energy sector.

Yes, we'll have some increased costs in order to do that. I don't apologize for them. I'm against the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, just before putting the question, the Chair has again

been informed that, although the division bells were rung six times —

the A and B systems were each rung three times — some members heard

only one short ring. I ask members to bear that in mind. For future

divisions, it would be appreciated if any further problems were

reported to the Chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman.

In view of that, I think it would be appropriate to request unanimous

agreement of the House to have the vote taken.

MR. HOWARD:

The Chair might consider receiving information throughout the day from

the Whip of each side of the House that all their members have heard

the bells and that they are all here, before you proceed with the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That seems eminently fair, hon. members.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I think we have to have agreement to proceed. I think that's the

appropriate procedure, Mr. Chairman. If the opposition or the

government happen to have any members not present, I'd like to know

about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members can agree on anything

they wish to agree on, but possibly, hon. members, if it is the wish to

the House to discuss this matter.... Right now we are faced with a vote

that must be called on an amendment to vote 67. I would ask hon.

members if it is agreed that we proceed.

Leave granted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lorimer

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 25

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 67 approved.

On vote 68: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $2,469,409.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to repeat that while we on this side are also

very concerned about the operation of the bells, I'm quite convinced that

they haven't worked as well as they used to when the member for Vancouver

South used to be in charge of maintaining the bell system. In passing, I just

want to point out that all caucus and ministerial offices are located in this

building. Our standing orders allow for a full five

[ Page 5580 ]

minutes

for people to answer the bells. Certainly I have every confidence in

the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) an whomever he may deputize to

make sure that all members of the House can get into the chamber. Mr.

Chairman, it would seem that the government House Leader should discuss

the government's position with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm), the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) or

the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), because they say

it's the duty of all members to be here at all times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on vote 68.

MR. D'ARCY: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, the Utilities Commission,

and we're going to that. I hope all members are here at all times, as those

members over there have suggested. I can't really understand why the House

Leader should be concerned that some of his members wouldn't be here at

all times. After all, that is the position of three or four members on the

back bench over there — where, I'm sure, they're going to remain.

the Chairman may remember, since he was a member of the House last

summer when the Utilities Commission bill was brought in, we had

numerous concerns about the particular licence it gave the minister to

override, bypass or simply disregard the Utilities Commission. It was

not only we on this side of the House who had reservations about the

operation of the commission. By the way, this does not in any way

reflect on any personnel of the commission, who I think are attempting

to do the best they can with any issues referred to them. However, as

we all know, very few issues — certainly no issues of any importance —

have been referred to the Utilities Commission.

I note that

during these estimates the minister has said that it's a first for the

province of B.C. that rate increases of British Columbia Hydro should

be referred to the Utilities Commission. I want to give a personal

opinion that the policy of the former minister responsible for B.C.

Hydro under W.A.C. Bennett, Ray Williston, was that Hydro rates were

too important to be left to the whims of a utilities commission, and

should be decided by cabinet. I disagreed with that position. I was not

a member of the House at the time. I was a taxpaying private citizen,

but I disagreed with that position of the former Social Credit

government.

When the New Democrats were in office, the

minister in charge of Hydro, Bob Williams, had a similar position. I

disagreed then with his position for three years. Mr. Williston had had

that position for about 12 years prior to that. Now for the first six

years this government has been in office, they've had the same thing.

They've simply decided that they're going to make decisions behind

closed cabinet doors on Hydro rate increases. But the minister said

last summer that there was going to be an end to all that. Hydro rate

increases were hereafter going to go to the Utilities Commission.

Since the minister began making those statements — and he has repeated them

constantly ever since — there have been three Hydro rate increases. Not a single

one has been referred to the Utilities Commission. The cabinet approved a Hydro

rate increase while the legislation was before the House. Since the first of

the year there have been two other rate increases. One was based on a refinancing

formula that the government had to go to to protect the bond rating of B.C.

Hydro. Its absolutely terrible equity-debt ratio had to be approved, or there

was going to be some difficulty in forecasting by financial advisers to the

government in floating any more bonds for B.C. Hydro, whose debt is now well

over $6 billion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

The

other rate increase was based on an arbitrary decision by government to

increase taxes — the water rental fee, which was simply done. In

fairness to this situation, it was also applied to West Kootenay Power

and Light Co. Ltd. and to Cominco Ltd. But certainly it applied carte

blanche to B.C. Hydro, and the Utilities Commission was given the

luxury of deciding how that rate increase was going to be applied —

whether it was going to be applied across the board to all Hydro

customers, or whether the entire load of that rate increase was going

to be borne that first year by commercial and residential customers.

there have been three rate increases after the minister began

announcing that this was never going to happen again, and he was still

announcing in the House yesterday that this was not taking place

anymore. I only hope that at some point in the future the minister does

come through with what he's saying is the state of the situation now,

and begins actually referring requests for rate increases by B.C. Hydro

to the Utilities Commission.

I also want to point out.... Let's see. Yes, the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is in the House. It's good to see the Minister

of Labour in the House. He's your colleague from Prince George, Mr. Chairman.

have noticed, and I have certainly been advised in discussing this with

some of his Social Credit supporters — or at least they were in the

last election — that the minister seems to understand the concerns

people have in the Prince George area about the Energy ministry, the

Utilities Commission and the Utilities Commission Act when he's in

Prince George. However, the Minister of Labour somehow alters his point

of view when he gets to Victoria, altering it somewhere between Prince

George airport and Flat Bay airport. Every politician has the right to

change his mind. That happens quite frequently. However, somehow the

Minister of Labour changes his mind again when he goes back to his

riding.

We're hoping to hear the Minister of Labour or the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — who's not in the

House, Mr. Chairman — or the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) make some

remarks in this debate about the reservations they have constantly

expressed since last August about the Utilities Commission Act. They

have not complained any more than we have about operations by the

personnel on that commission. They have complained about the act

itself, and the arbitrary powers which the minister has taken under

this bill.

In particular, the member for Omineca was wont to

say that he was sure the bill was written by communists and various

fellow travellers. He certainly could not support anything like that.

Well, Mr. Chairman, he's on record a supporting all the provisions of

the bill when it was before the House last year, and we certainly have

not been able to find him questioning any of the policies of the

minister within this House. We are wondering how he's going to vote on

this particular vote 68 under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, because it covers the B.C. Utilities Commission. I

understand that that member for Omineca does have problems every now

and then. He lost his research

[ Page

5581 ]

staff

a few months ago in an arbitrary way. I believe he also lost the

chairmanship of the caucus rather suddenly. However, we do know that he

is an outspoken person when he has concerns for the people in his

riding, and those concerns are certainly always brought home. When the

Social Credit Party told him that he was unlikely to get the nomination

unless he changed his tune on a number of things....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the vote before us is the British

Columbia Utilities Commission; it's not the member for Omineca nor is

it any other member in this House. It has to do with the British

Columbia Utilities Commission, the functions that it performs and the

money that it needs, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

committee is, of course, advised that during the estimates of ministers

and during Committee of Supply there must be relevancy; the relevancy

must pertain to the administrative actions of the minister whose vote

is before us at present. I am sure the committee and all members are

aware of our standing orders with respect to those rules.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could beg leave to make an introduction of a school group that's presently in the gallery.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I wouldn't have interrupted the hon. member's speech, but he was interrupted anyway.

have in the gallery today a very important and bright school group from

Hatzic, which is in the municipality of Mission — grade 10 of the

Hatzic Junior Secondary School under the leadership of Mary Philpot,

Wayne Lennie and Charles Weber. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman. I would agree totally with you that vote

68 involves the administrative responsibilities of the minister, and that's

precisely what people outside this House — the Employers Council, various environmental

groups, various labour bodies, various sport-fishing groups and some of the

members on the government side who are a little more independent than others

— have been complaining about: the administrative responsibility, how much has

been given to this minister for his administrative responsibility under the

act and how they would like to see amendments brought in to change that act.

Perhaps the minister will, in due course, be willing to bring in some amendments

to alter that act to satisfy the concerns of people both within and outside

the Legislature, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in the interests

of some kind of order in the House, we had full opportunity to talk under my

vote, the ministry's office vote, about anything that was deficient in the

way the ministry was operating and all of the functions of the ministry, including

the British Columbia Utilities Commission. That was done by that member and

by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and others. Now we can’t

reflect on votes or ask for amendments; we're into the administration of

the British Columbia Utilities Commission. I think that the Chairman should

bring that member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

It's a very interesting point of order. The committee is, of course,

reminded that the necessity for legislation is not allowed to the

committee while we're in estimates of supply. The administrative action

is what we debate during Committee of Supply.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, without agreeing with the minister's

statement, but certainly understanding why he is terribly embarrassed by discussions

of the B.C. Utilities Commission bill or any aspects of it before the House,

I will, because of my total lack of confidence in the effectiveness of that

statute to look after the interests of the taxpaying public in British Columbia,

move that vote 68 be reduced by the amount of $763,658.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I want to just very briefly speak against the amendment.

I'm very surprised that an amendment of this nature would come in under

this vote, particularly given that the members opposite have given such

an eloquent plea for a B.C. Utilities Commission, which can be

effective and take its rightful role in doing the important job that it

will have to do over the next many, many years, including its

regulatory role as to regulation of the rates of B.C. Hydro and the

other utilities in the province, which no other government in the

province has ever done; and also the very important role that it will

play in regulating energy projects.

A terrific workload is

going to be faced by that Energy Commission in looking at things like

the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, Site C, liquefied natural gas

projects, petrochemical projects and various power development, in

addition to the increased demand that they will have for their

regulatory activities as well. Those increased demands, Mr. Chairman,

lead to the need for, first of all, new staff to deal with the problems

but secondly, while we're recruiting staff, there is a need for a major

amount of money for professional and special services to use until we

have our recruitment up to par.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a couple of things about two or three of

the comments that the member for Rossland Trail made. The first one, that no

issues of any importance have been referred to the British Columbia Utilities

Commission since it was established by legislation.... I guess you put

your priorities where you want to, but I would say that one of the first tasks

the Utilities Commission had to deal with was the public hearings on natural

gas pricing in this province. They were a very major set of hearings for the

future of British Columbia. Those hearings have been held and now I have

a report on my desk. They'll be considered.

The

other, of course, is that the Site C dam application has been referred

to the British Columbia Utilities Commission. I'd suggest that that's a

pretty major issue in this province.

Regarding the other two

points of error that the member put forward in his speech, he indicated

to the House that the financing criteria which were directed to the

B.C. Utilities Commission with regard to the debt-equity and interest

ratio for B.C. Hydro had led to rate increases. That's not true. There

have been no rate increases as a result of that, so there was no need

to refer anything anywhere. It simply has not resulted in rate

increases. In terms of the water rate increases which were put forward

by the government, that's true: those did result in rate increases.

Those were referred to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, the

same as the other util-

[ Page 5582 ]

ities

which faced the same dilemma. In both cases — not just for B.C. Hydro,

but for the other utilities which were affected — there were

applications made to the British Columbia Utilities Commission. Under

the terms of their legislation, which is the same for every utilities

commission that I've ever seen anywhere in North America, they have an

opportunity to pass on rates, given increased taxes from government or

from some other source over which they have no control. That was done.

There was no difference between the way B.C. Hydro was treated and the

way West Kootenay Power and Light was treated. It was referred to the

BCUC. Again, the financial criteria that were recommended to the B.C.

Utilities Commission have not led to any rate increase.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister would have us believe that he's a schizophrenic

and that when he is wearing his minister's hat, the decisions that he makes

somehow have no bearing on the decisions he must make when he is wearing his

director of B.C. Hydro hat.

mentioned that the water licence increase was something over which B.C.

Hydro had absolutely no control. I would suggest that as a member of

government he was part of the decision-making process that led to those

water licence increases, and that the question of whether or not those

water licences were going to be increased, and by how much, was never

submitted to the B.C. Utilities Commission. It was never considered.

The B.C. Utilities Commission was allowed to consider whether or not

and in what way the various utilities and industries affected by the

water licence increase.... They considered how those could be passed on

to the consumers, whether those consumers be industrial, commercial or

residential, but not whether the increased taxation costs to the

various utilities were going to take place. I would suggest that the

minister is not being completely direct in explaining those rate

increases for B.C. Hydro.

I think there are a number of

other things that we could discuss on this; however, the afternoon is

moving along and I merely want to make one more point. Last year, for

part of the year, questions which are now hopefully referred to the

B.C. Utilities Commission were considered by the former B.C. Energy

Commission. Later on in the year, due to actions of this Legislature,

the B.C. Energy Commission was disbanded. Those questions — and perhaps

the minister would indicate this — and perhaps some different ones were

referred to the new B.C. Utilities Commission, which he was responsible

for setting up.

Our point in opposition is that because he

has overridden the B.C. Utilities Commission in a way that he never did

or could do with the old B.C. Energy Commission, there were a number of

items considered by the B.C. Energy Commission which the B.C. Utilities

Commission has been unable to consider. That is not because they

desired it to be that way, but because the minister did not refer those

things. Therefore, in view of the fact that it's hard to make a point

that the workload of the B.C. Utilities Commission has actually

increased over that of the old B.C. Energy Commission — I think they

would like to see their workload increased, but they have not been

allowed to do so — we find it rather difficult to understand how the

minister can justify a funding increase from $1 million to $2.4 million

this year. That's an increase of almost 150 percent. Inflation is

around 12 percent. I wish it were much lower. I'm sure you do too. It

certainly is not 150 percent.

If the minister could

demonstrate to this committee and the people of B.C. that their tax

dollars are needed for this massive increase, instead of arbitrarily

making decisions such as the one we discussed about the water rate

increase, and bypassing the commission on the issue of the Vancouver

Island pipeline, then I think the opposition — I hope we're reasonable

people — would find some justification in a fairly substantial increase

in the amount of taxpayers' money allotted to the Utilities Commission.

But in view of the way the minister has been handling the Utilities

Commission, which after all is his own creation, in all fairness we

have to have severe doubts about this particular vote. That is why we

are moving a reduction in the amount, not to eliminate or clip the

wings of the capability of the Utilities Commission to do the jobs the

minister may refer to it, but simply to put them down to where their

operation level was last year in order that there can be some

accounting and some justification for the funds that they are, in fact,

spending.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'll be

brief. The member talks about the Utilities Commission deciding whether

or not the water rates in the province should be increased. He's right

that it is a form of a tax increase. Government brings in taxes in many

ways, whether it's water rates, ferry rates or rates for fishing

licences or car licences. Those are all forms of taxation; I wouldn't

dispute that. But I don't think that member, on reflection, would

really suggest that some other agency outside of the elected

Legislature should decide whether or not those increases should be made

or taxes should be increased. It has been accepted practice for as long

as I've been around in public life — and I think almost forever in the

democratic system — that it's the responsibility of government to

establish taxes, not some agency that is set up outside of the

government responsibility.

I think that if the member

stopped and thought for a minute he would agree. His leader certainly

agrees. I'd like to refer you to Hansard

of February 27, 1973. Hon. Mr. Barrett was talking about whether or not

a public hearing or public debate should be held with regard to some

financial decisions that the government was being called upon to make

at that time. This is what the then leader of government said: "The

question of a public hearing on the economics is absurd, and the member

knows it. No government anywhere in Canada, any provincial jurisdiction

or any federal jurisdiction, takes a basic matter of economic policy to

public hearings." That's the parliamentary system. He went on to say:

"The member suggesting that we take specifics to a public hearing is

absurd, in my opinion. It would be a dereliction of the responsibility

that we have as a government to start throwing around figures while

we're in the midst of negotiations...." Mr. Chairman, I just say that

that's the parliamentary responsibility that elected governments have.

The

matter of the rates then went to the B.C. Utilities Commission — and it

always will. I would expect that the member would want to apologize for

saying that the rates were increased as a result of the financial

directive and criteria that were given to the B.C. Utilities

Commission, because that didn't happen.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

[ Page

5583 ]

NAYS — 25

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

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

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, did I understand the Clerk to read

the names Heinrich and Kempf as supporting the government's Utilities

Commission structure? That's right, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will be recorded, hon. member.

Vote 68 approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Vote 69, Mr. Chairman: resolved that a sum not exceeding $7,242,262

be granted to Her Majesty, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, energy resources branch.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. D'ARCY: Even the member for South Peace River was surprised

at the amount of this. He stumbled over the $7 million. Even he was surprised

at that amount, and so are we. We note that that is an increase from a little

over $5 million last year. We simply can't fathom any explanation the minister

has given as to why this particular vote should be increased by this particular

amount. That's why we are moving that vote 69 be reduced to last year's

level by the amount of $1,178,750.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The amendment appears to be in order. Prior to the question, I

recognize the member for Prince George South for an introduction.

MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I might have leave of the committee to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN:

It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

to introduce a group of students from McBride Secondary School in the

lovely Robson Valley and their chaperones: Andy Peasgood, Len Linka,

Dan Hughes, Guy Lawrence, Tim Dunn, Glen Roger, Hilda Wingie, Jan

Swets, Terry Gunster and Bob McKinnon.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Chairman, I might ask the government Whip if he's prepared to

proceed with the vote. Thank you. I assume the opposition Whip is

similarly in accord.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The opposition Whip says no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, are we agreed to proceed?

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration

in making rulings I would like to point out that several times this afternoon

the government House Leader of the moment — they seem to switch around; it's

kind of like Beau Geste over there, depending on who's working at the particular

moment — has several times got up after the five-minute time period has expired

and talked about leave to proceed with the vote. I note rule 16(2): "Upon

a division being called the division bell shall be rung forthwith" — as

you have been doing, Mr. Chairman. "No sooner than two nor longer than

five minutes thereafter Mr. Speaker shall again state the question and amendment,

if any." There is no provision there for any leave being a asked of any

member of the House to proceed with a vote. When five minutes are up the vote

is taken, and that's it.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would think that in the interest

of fairness to the opposition and government members, when it's been

brought to the attention of the Chair by hon. members that the bells

are not working effectively in this assembly this afternoon, we would

have agreement to have the vote taken so we don't have any particular

member on any side of the House literally disfranchised by mechanical

failure.

MR. KING:

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman,

I would just say that the standing orders of the House and the Chairman

of the House can be relied upon to dispense fair play in this

institution. Certainly I would not cast any aspersion on the Chair by

inferring that only the government is competent to assess and dispense

fair play.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order. Mr.

Chairman, the question of fair play is the question of every member

having an opportunity to vote and having heard the bell. If there's

mechanical failure. that is hardly the fault of the Chair.

MR. D'ARCY:

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, just to repeat what had been said

very briefly earlier, I would like the government House Leader of the

moment to get together with some of his own back bench, who several

times in the last couple of days have made the point that it is the

duty of all members to be attending in the House at all times unless

they have leave to be away. We can't understand why he has a problem

with some of his members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a

point of order, Mr. Chairman, I remember when the bells have been

erratic during this sitting of the Legislature and on previous

occasions it has been at your initiation that both sides were asked

that the bells would not ring until agreement was achieved, any day

when the bells were identified to be in faulty condition. That has been

the practice in committee for some time. I don't think it’s

inconvenient for the House to continue what has now become practice in

committee having identified this problem on an earlier occasion. The

bells ring in the precinct, and a member is not being derelict in his

duty if the bell does not ring in the area where he is in the

precincts. That's if he's in the precincts. Obviously the bells don't

ring overseas in New Zealand.

[ Page 5584 ]

MR. HOWARD:

You still have to rule on the point of order raised by my colleague,

Mr. Chairman. I would point out to you, contrary to what the Premier

has just said, that the only bells that are ringing are in his head.

There was an agreement reached on one occasion not too long ago; that

was all. That does not constitute practice regardless of how desperate

the Premier might like to make it practice. There was an understanding

reached on one occasion and one occasion only. There was an offer made

earlier today that was not taken up by the government: it was in fact

rejected by ignoring it. So we have to abide by the rules — five minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, I think we have entertained sufficient debate on the

point of order raised by the hon. member. The Chair will entertain one

more point on each side of the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the ringing of the division

bells, I feel that if the standing orders are deficient insofar as the procedure

for ringing divisions bells are concerned, perhaps you could suggest to the

Speaker of the House that we notify the members of the Social Credit caucus

by registered mail.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

My point of order was to do with the remarks of the member for Skeena.

I took exception to his facetious words that the only bells the Premier

could hear were ringing in his head. While that may exemplify the best

of NDP humour, I find it offensive and would ask him to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD:

If the Premier finds that offensive, and there's nothing going on in

his head, I'll gladly withdraw the reference to bells ringing there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I have concluded debate on the subject. The matter is now before the Chair and the Chair will....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

No, hon. member. I would inform the member that we are in the middle of

a division. I have taken the points of order regarding the division

that is about to be held by the Chair. I will entertain a point of

order by the member at the conclusion of the division.

the point of order that was raised, I think it is fair to note standing

order 16: "Upon a division being called, the division bells shall be

rung forthwith." It has been brought to the Chair's attention by both

sides, both in the House and privately at the table, that problems are

being experienced with the bells. That being the case, it is the

Chair's opinion that some extension must be granted so that members can

have full opportunity to attend the House to vote. I'm sure all hon.

members will appreciate that it is the responsibility of members not

only to be in the precinct to conduct business but also to attend

divisions. In view of the fact that this does not happen that often

and we've had few problems with the bells until today, I would ask all

members to extend that courtesy to their colleagues so that they may be

here in order that divisions be taken.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gablemann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 25

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

MR. BARNES:

On a point of order, in reference to the suggestion by the Premier that

this side of the House was showing poor humour when it was suggested

that he had bells in his head, I would like to remind the House that a

few years ago this Premier referred to the opposition as dogs that he

was going to train.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: What are they so jumpy about? I've got you this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is not on a point of order.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, I'll just conclude by saying that the Premier is so sure

that we are out of order, but he made reference to the opposition being

dogs that he could train. I suggest that the Premier was

unparliamentary. Surely by now he has learned to heal himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order — personal reflections never are.

MR. HOWARD:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. While we didn't want to

challenge Your Honour's ruling earlier, you seem to have placed the

members of the assembly in a bit of a dilemma. I ask your guidance.

Perhaps you'll want to consider what should be done in this situation.

Your Honour read the standing order with respect to the ringing of he

bells forthwith, and that it has been indicated to the Chair hat bells

have not been heard in some parts of the precincts. Therefore the Chair

should have some leeway to extend the period of time. What would be the

situation, sir, if an hon. member came in after a vote had been

conducted and complained that he had not heard the bells? Would he then

be permitted to vote retroactively? It should not be left to the

discretion of the Chair to allow that period of time to elapse.

[ Page

5585 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the point the hon. member has

made, but it would be virtually impossible for this Chair to rule on

any hypothetical situations, and they must be dealt with when they

arise. Again, I would point out that this is not a regular occurrence

we're dealing with regarding the division bells. When it has been

brought to the attention of the Chair, particularly by both sides, then

I respectfully submit that it is the duty and obligation of the Chair

to take that into account.

Vote 69 approved.

On vote 70: mineral resources branch, $7,839,878.

MR. D’ARCY:

Mr. Chairman, we note with some pleasure that this is one of the few

votes under this minister not to increase astronomically. The mineral

resources branch is a very important one to the province of British

Columbia, and to the industry and workers in B.C.

However,

we do find a couple of items on this vote which we are concerned about.

We particularly would like some better explanations than we have had as

to why the travel costs under this particular vote should have gone up

by $82,000, and why the professional services should have gone up by

some $29,000. So even though we concede that a substantial part of the

roughly $400,000 increase under this vote is reasonable and justified,

we do have concerns about those two items. I therefore feel that I must

move vote 70 be reduced by the amount of $112,291.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to the amendment. I am

really surprised at the opposition in bringing in an amendment to this

vote, particularly when they face the possibility that I would repeat

the same speech I've been giving for three days about the mining

activity in British Columbia, and the healthy activity going on. But I

won't do that; I'll resist that opportunity today, except to say that

there is significant mining activity in this province, up to something

like 70,000 new mineral claims recorded in the five years between 1975

and 1980. It's extremely important that we have staff on hand who can

handle those new mineral claims.

The

member mentions

specifically increases in travel. That increase is necessitated by the

buoyant activity of new mines opening, and the need for inspector s

to travel and make sure that when those new mines open they

adequately meet the regulations under the Mines Act. I'm proud to say

that we're a victim of our own success here, and I reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 25

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

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

On vote 70.

MR. BRUMMET:

I believe it might be appropriate under this vote to make a brief

request of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The

Fort St. John chamber of commerce has a project underway to establish a

petroleum industry museum in the city of Fort St. John — appropriately,

because of the size and scope of the industry in that area. They have

managed to get an old derrick provided to them. It would take

approximately $10,000 to move and install this derrick in connection

with the museum, which will, of course, be funded from community and

industry donations and in various other ways available to the chamber.

won’t quote the amount of revenue which comes from oil and gas sales in

the area; I think the minister is fairly familiar with those figures.

Very briefly, I would like to ask if the minister could find it in his

heart, and more particularly in his budget, to come up with about

$10,000 for this very worthy cause.

MR. KEMPF: I said

most of what I wanted to say yesterday in regard to this minister's

estimates, but, very briefly, there is a question I would like to ask

the minister under vote 70. The question is in relation to the Placer

Mining Act. As members will recall, the Placer Mining Act was brought

in by the NDP in 1973, and it's still on the books of this province.

It's one of the acts mentioned in the news release from which I

quoted yesterday. The news release said that through those kinds of

acts the government of the day was destroying the mining industry in

the province.

This act not make any sense. As we all know

very well, gold is found where you can find it — in the streams and

rivers of this province. It's found where it exists, not where the

government decrees it should be found. [Laughter.] The urban members

laugh, but I'm sure the rural members, should they be in the House on

that side of the floor, would agree with what I'm saying in regard to

this detrimental act which exists on the books of this province. This

act is also a deterrent to the entrepreneurial spirit of many citizens

of this province, particularly citizens in the north who have

initiative enough to get out and look for that gold.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I have, Madam Member. Have you? Well, good for you.

Interjection.

[ Page 5586 ]

MR. KEMPF:

Yes, I have. I've done many things in this province, unknown to many

members over there, many of which the members opposite wouldn't

understand.

But,

Mr. Chairman, back to the Placer Mining

Act. It's a backwards document; it's typically socialist, a

government-knows-all, government-knows-better piece of legislation. My

question to

the minister, on behalf of all of the miners and prospectors of this

province, is: when are we going to strike this socialist document once

and forever from the statutes of the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I must say I've had quite a lot of correspondence and

personal contact about the Placer Mining Act in the last little while,

including representations from the member for Omineca, a number of

people from his constituency and some from the Cariboo as well. In

fact, the Cariboo Placer Association met with us not too long ago and

talked about this act. It is designed to attempt to come to grips with

some of the many land-use conflicts that are prevalent whenever a

stream or some part of the environment is disturbed. There may be

better ways to do it, Mr. Chairman, and all I can say to the member, as

I've said earlier, is that I have a review going on — both at the

ministry level and through the Attorney-General's ministry as well,

because there is apparently some legal consideration to be made here in

terms of land tenure or claim tenure and things like that. So I promise

that that review will be expedited, and perhaps I can have another

answer for the member.

As far as the oil derrick at Fort St.

John goes, I think that, first of all, the efforts by the chamber of

commerce and the citizens of Fort St. John are to be commended, because

the petroleum industry is the life-blood of the economics of that whole

area. For them to bring in a museum and the related activities which go

on around that museum will be a welcome addition to Fort St. John and

to the whole northeast of British Columbia. I would say it's beyond the

terms of the budget of this ministry to get involved in museums, except

in a very minor way perhaps for operating programs, which I think we do

in Nelson, Rossland and perhaps at Britannia Beach as well.

But

I can say that if we can divorce the museum idea from it and talk about

having the oil derrick.... I've talked to the chamber of commerce

and they've been extremely successful, first of all, in getting the rig

and getting an oilwell trucking company to bring the rig in — I believe

into Fort St. John — and assemble it. There is need for some $10,000 to

paint it, sand-blast it and do some other things that are necessary. If

we can divorce it from the museum, Mr. Chairman, I'll do all I can to

see if we can find that money in the budget for the derrick itself. If

we can, we'd be happy to provide it.

Vote 70 approved.

Vote 71: petroleum resources branch, $2,140,743 — approved.

On vote 72: resource access program, $550,000.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, I want to inquire whether the minister received and read

a copy of a resolution submitted by the East Kootenay Recreation

Association. It has to do with some mining claims being placed on some

very valuable recreational property in that area. But just for the

record of the committee, I would read it. You may have a copy, I'm not

sure, but it states that a copy was sent to your office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That member never brings these things up under the proper vote.

MR. BARNES: This is the proper vote, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, it isn't.

MR. BARNES: How do you know? You haven't even heard the subject matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps the committee can briefly hear the

member's argument with respect to vote 72, and what he wishes to tell

us.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, it's amazing how twitchy the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is this afternoon.

This

has to do with the possibility of a mining exploration road being built

through Mause Creek over the top of Lost or Sunken Creek to the

headwaters of Dibble Creek through prime recreation land located in the

Steeples range of the East Kootenays. Are you familiar with that

resolution?

Just to make a point, you see how twitchy and

jumpy they were. Do you still want to object, Mr. Minister of Municipal

Affairs? Do you still feel this is not relevant? Would you like to

speak to this matter? Everything is unimportant to that minister.

Mr. Chairman, I will proceed. The resolution reads as follows:

"Whereas

the B.C. Forest Service is very concerned regarding newly staked

mineral claims encompassing seven square kilometres in this area, the

main question of concern is perceived to be the acceptability of road

development for mineral exploration purposes, before the viability and

certainty of a mine is established,

"Whereas

the East Kootenay Recreation Association, along with the E.K. Hunters

Association, the Kootenay Nordic Outdoor Club and numerous Outdoor

recreationists are very concerned about a conflict between a

development of access, and prime outdoor recreational land and wildlife

habitat protection,

"Whereas the control of

road construction, and its possible environmental implications, as it

relates to the ability of the ministry to prevent unnecessary damage

and obtain a sufficient standard of road reclamation under existing

regulations,

"Whereas the area in question

provides more recreational and tourist value than any future potential

timber harvesting or any known significant mining potential,

"Therefore

be it resolved that the B.C. Recreation Association support the

resolution of the E.K. Recreation Association to oppose any

construction of roads through Mause Creek to Lost-Sunken Creek to

Dibble Creek headwaters for the purpose of mineral exploration, and

that the B.C. Recreation Association submit the resolution to the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources."

[ Page

5587 ]

I was merely asking if you had received that resolution, and if you

would indicate to the House your response with respect to protecting

this recreational land.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I

appreciate the member asking the question, but he is already about a

month behind. The problem has been resolved to the satisfaction of all

parties, through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, and the

Ministry of Forests at the regional level in Cranbrook. Thank you very

much. [Laughter.]

MR. BARNES: I wonder what the

Premier was laughing about, Mr. Chairman. The Premier jumped up and

started laughing. He was sitting there twitching a few minutes ago. He

didn't know what was going on in his own government. Now he is

attacking the opposition for trying to bring a matter before the House.

I am merely raising it as an inquiry to the minister. I'm not accusing

him of anything. What's he so jumpy about? Why are you so negative on

that side of the House? I would like to point out to that minister and

members on that side of the House that last weekend, from May 7 through

May 10, the B.C. Recreation Association held a conference in Vernon, in

the riding of the Premier. This resolution was passed this weekend. Now

the minister is telling me that I'm behind the times. If I'm behind the

times, you write a letter to the B.C. Recreation Association and tell

them that their resolution was redundant and not necessary. That's all

I'm asking. It's an inquiry, not a condemnation of the government.

There's no need for that ridiculous arrogance on the part of those

people on that side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll tell all members of the committee we are straying beyond the scope of the vote.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's concern with respect to the

subject matter. But the problem has been resolved to the satisfaction

of all, at the constituency level in Kootenay. I have no mandate to the

British Columbia Recreation Association. I have one to the people of my

constituency and I pride myself on being a hardworking constituency

MLA. I'm going to continue to do that for a long time to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the hon. member's commitment to his

constituents. I have no problem with that, but I'm wondering if he is

condemning the B.C. Recreation Association for also having some concern

about that area. You have no obligation whatsoever, Mr. Member, to the

B.C. Recreation Association? Is that what you're telling this committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Just a moment please. We're allowing a little bit of latitude here,

which will be extended to the member. The subject has been canvassed,

I'm sure.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the mandate is the responsibility of the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I have got that problem resolved,

as I said, at the regional level, and I don't see any point in taking up

the time of this Legislature to debate the issue. I commend the British Columbia

Recreation Association for bringing up the subject, but if they would do some

research and read the papers, they would find that the matter has been resolved.

Thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. BARNES:

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I shall, on behalf of that member, assure him

that the B.C. Recreation Association will have his remarks in full.

Thank you.

Vote 72 approved.

Vote 73: Fort Nelson Indian Reserve minerals revenue sharing, $6,000,000 — approved.

On vote 74: building occupancy charges, $1,716,483.

MR. D’ARCY:

Once again, as we have with other ministries in the estimates that have

been brought before the House this year, we are absolutely aghast at

the kind of rental charges that a government agency, totally controlled

by the government.... All the directors of that agency are

appointed by the Premier and his executive council, at the stroke of a

pen.... They have arbitrarily decided to increase rents to this

ministry by a sum in excess of $450,000. We see the rental charges to

this ministry going from $1.2 million to a little over $1.7 million.

We find this action by the government absolutely unconscionable. I

suppose the minister might get up and say that this is something the

government has no control over, as he claimed with the water rental

fee earlier. The fact is that it's a government decision, Mr. Chairman.

Therefore I move that vote 74 be reduced by the amount of $454,483.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Howard

Kina

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 25

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 74 approved.

On vote 75: computer and consulting charges, $965,700.

[ Page 5588 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Once again, we find a Crown corporation, created by

this government and totally controlled by the government over there, increasing

the amount of computer and consulting charges to this ministry by an amount

in excess of $500,000. I would point out that since we're debating a budget

that sees a number of taxation increases to private citizens as well as to business

and industry in this province, to see these kinds of computer and consulting

charges — which were once open to bidding by the private sector, but which are

now completely controlled by that big government over there — increased by an

amount in excess of 100 percent leads us to believe it is totally in order to

move that vote 75 be reduced by the amount of $515,700.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LORIMER:

I have a few matters to bring up in this vote. I want to relate this

particular vote to the other votes in the ministry, regarding the

overexpenditure in this vote and other votes within this ministry. If

we compare the estimates for the 1980-81 year and the 1981-82 year, we

find that we have a 50 percent increase. Yet if we look at the interim

financial statement for ten months' expenditures, and if you carry out

the figures to a 12-month period on the same ratio, we find we have had

expenditures this year of only $15 million, with an estimate of $21

million. We will likely underspend the 1980-81 year by some $6

million; about 75 percent of the estimate will be spent. Now we have an

estimate increased by 50 percent over the amount of money that we

didn't spend last year. I'm suggesting here — like others have

suggested before — that this is a straight padding of the estimates,

with no intention whatever of expending the funds that we're voting on.

These motions to reduce should be accepted by all sides of the House,

because, obviously, we'll look at it next year. We know that this money

isn't going to be spent. We're increasing last year's vote by 50

percent. This year we won't have spent the money that was voted last

year. We'll have spent only 75 percent of that figure.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 25

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

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

MR. D'ARCY: Just before the question is put on vote 75, since this

is the last vote under this particular ministry I just want to say that I, for

one, appreciate the efforts that you yourself and the member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) have made to keep a reasonable semblance of order this afternoon during

what has occasionally been a somewhat fractious debate.

Vote 75 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 54: minister's office, $225,957.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Chairman, I have great pleasure this afternoon to rise in support

of these progressive estimates in the Ministry of Education. Before I

make a few brief introductory remarks I will introduce my staff

arranged behind me here: Jim Carter, Deputy Minister of Education;

Grant Fisher, Assistant Deputy Minister (Post Secondary); Glenn Wall,

Acting Assistant Deputy Minister (Schools) and Jack Fleming, Assistant

Deputy Minister (Finance).

The year 1980-81 will be a year

in which I hope we'll see some good changes being plotted out in the

field of education. During the past six months I had the opportunity to

go on a province-wide tour for two months in which I was able to visit

some 70 schools in a number of districts and to hold 41 public forums

on education....

MS. BROWN: Did they all give you lunch?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, 19 of them gave me lunch, hon. member. In the case of 18, no incidents were untoward.

MR. BARBER: You're always worried about eating lunch.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I know. We had student and professional forums each day and we had

public forums in the evening in 19 schools. About 1,000 briefs were

received and an educational report is under final preparation. It will

be released shortly and will be sent to every person who presented a

brief. The modest cost of this tour was $125,000. We did spend money

advertising. We advertised the tour because we were advertising for

commentary on the public education system. We had very good response.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

should also mention just a few areas of education this year which have

received special attention. One is the area of special education and

the needs of handicapped students. We have made major initiatives this

year in providing educational services for the severely disabled, and

the first member for Victoria will be pleased to hear that there are

going to be some further initiatives for the gifted, believe it or not.

We are going to be providing a major in-service training program of

teachers for the gifted this year. I hope that this will progress to

some gifted funding.

In the area of handicapped education,

the strides we have made have been most important. We're setting up

regional resource centres in two sections of the province, and these

[ Page

5589 ]

will be expanding. We're taking steps to ensure that there is more

provincial funding in the area of the severely handicapped. The strides

made in special education have been, I think, particularly important.

are also revising the facilities manual, that document so often

complained about, and the long approval system so often complained of

is being streamlined. It is now going to be easier for districts to

receive emergency funding and easier for small school districts with

needs for small schools to receive the facilities needed.

evidence of that, our capital budget this year had a major increase in

borrowing — from $120 million the previous year to $219 million this

year. This is partly because some school districts have had shifts in

school population, and we have some growth districts as well. We have

encouraged some badly needed school construction not possible before.

I'm

also pleased to say that a number of changes were implemented following

the education tour in such fields as scholarships and discipline.

Changes in letter grades were made as well. We also gave leadership to

arrange for portability of sick leave. We're trying to construct a

system whereby portability of sick leave between school districts in

this province can be brought about with provincial leadership.

have also altered and revised the administrative handbook which sets

out the times that are spent by students in the school in various

courses of study. We have introduced two new courses into the

curriculum, which will be effective in September 1982. A number of

changes have already been made.

It is apparent that we must

have a revision and modernization of the School Act, formerly the

Public Schools Act. That document was created about 20 or 25 years ago

and needs a considerable amount of changing and updating. I think it

has to set out in much clearer form the relationship between the

various participants in the education system, and point the directions

of the future, and not simply be the somewhat mechanical document of

powers and authority that it is today. It should point out the modern

responsibilities and rights of the participants in the system. I know

that that will occur, and that revision will take place in the next

year.

I believe that the rights of the disabled to an

appropriate education must be guaranteed in law, and guidelines which

will allow and assure that those rights can be exercised must be

clearly set out. I anticipate that that will include an appeal

procedure which will permit and, indeed, encourage parents of

handicapped children to take

part in decisions that are made as to the

assessment and placement of their children, and which will allow for an

avenue of appeal to some lay authority in their region against a

placement decision which may be deemed by those parents to be

inappropriate.

Another very important question in education

this year is teacher bargaining and the desires of teachers, which I

heard during my tour, to have a much greater say and involvement in the

decisions that are made concerning their schools and classrooms. That

matter was considered by the B.C. Teachers Federation at their

convention — they are going to be balloting on it — and by the B.C.

School Trustees Association at their convention last weekend.

should also mention the fact — well known in this House, of course —

that, because of the government's concern about the rising property

assessments and the way that that impacts on the school finance

formula, a school tax committee was established by this government to

look into that matter, to meet with interested parties and to hold

hearings if they wish. This committee has been active now for the past

month, has received a number of submissions and briefs and will be

making recommendations to government.

The government moved to take important steps to try to cushion the effect of

rising assessments by reducing the taxable value of home owners'

property from 14.5 to 11 percent this year. So if you had a house

assesed at $100,000 last year you would pay $14,500 tax. If that house

climbed in value to $135,000 in the ensuing year you would pay tax on

roughly the same amount. Where assessment increases were larger, that

shift did not cushion the blow, but it was an important step taken by

government. We will be examining the report of the school tax committee

to try and find a long-term way of addressing this question.

the field of post-secondary education. I should also mention very

briefly that operating budget increases for colleges and institutes

were up 19 percent. The critical skill shortages that are acute in this

province are being addressed by the provision of additional training.

Under post-secondary education, we also increased the amount of money

available for student aid, as a start to implementing in this province

some of the changes that I hope will occur nationally, when the task

force on student aid reports.

The member for Burnaby will be

pleased to know that it's been decided to fund women's access programs

for a three year term and to assist in their establishment in the

colleges. I thank her for the comments she made to me many times on

that subject.

Another matter that will come up for review in

the year ahead, because of the provisions in the College and Institute

Act, is a review of the functions of the three councils, which are

required to be reviewed in 1982.

I think that I will make more extensive remarks later during the course of my estimates and allow my critic a chance now.

MR. LAUK:

It is a pity that this Minister of Education has such little respect

for this chamber that he's given the opening to his estimates that he

has. Many briefs later, touring the province at great public expense,

announcing and reannouncing his long-awaited policy statement based on

those hearings, we’re still waiting for a report from the minister. I

would think that at the present rate those children entering elementary

school at the beginning of this minister's term would well have gone on

to post-secondary by the time he announces a revision of the Ministry

of Education pursuant to the forums he conducted this year. It's most

unfortunate that the minister is such a semantic stutterer that it

takes him so long to see what's so obvious and provide some solutions.

For example, I was just canvassing some of the briefs and recommendations that have been made. There were dozens of....

Mr.

Justice Gardom has dozed off, Mr. Chairman. That's why he's not going

to be on the court of appeal — or maybe that's why he will be on the

court of appeal. Delegatus non potest delegari, milord.

For

example, Mr. Chairman, 80 briefs were received on curriculum — I'm

reading from the BCSTA synopsis of briefs presented to the minister.

Several matters to do with curricula were raised and prominent were the

new social studies and family life curricula. Also, more time was

requested for new curriculum implementation, and subject

[ Page 5590 ]

specialists

requested more time for their speciality. There were 78 briefs on a

wide range of issues — accreditation, scholarships, learning assessment

and graduation requirements. My files are full of material on that,

both before and after the forums. Some of it came from the ministry.

There were 132 briefs with respect to parents, with a range covering

strikes, Canadian content, family life education — for and against —

class size, and discipline. Discipline and French courses emerged as

themes, as did bus problems. I suppose if the minister's file on bus

problems and my file were put on top of each other, they'd come to

about three feet. There are a lot of letters on bus problems — both

before and after the forums — and 116 briefs on associations and

councils, groups advocating more resources and curriculum time for the

handicapped, arts, multicultural, women, French and other interests.

Integration of the handicapped was by far the most common issue in that

series of briefs.

There were 52 briefs on nutrition in the

curriculum, morals instruction, biblical creation. Creationism emerged

as a recurrent theme in 52 of the briefs, Mr. Chairman.

The most significant report from the minister's tour, and one that should

cause us great concern, was in the Kelowna Capital News of October 22, 1980.

HON. MR. SMITH: New material.

MR. LAUK: At 5:30 p.m. on this day in particular, do you expect me to get into the stuff? Who's kidding whom, Mr. Chairman? [Laughter.]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada