1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2451 ]

CONTENTS

Personal Information Reporting Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 79). Hon. Ms. Young.

Introduction and first reading— 2451

Oral Questions

ICBC services during strike. Mr. Bennett — 2451

Effect of strike on driver documentation. Mr. Gardom — 2452

Asbestos fibre content in air at Cassiar Asbestos Corp. mine. Mr. Wallace — 2452

Mill rate limitations. Mr. Curtis — 2453

Ferry pre-boarding privileges. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2453

Use of grants by strata corporations association. Mr. McClelland — 2454

Student employment by Mines department. Mr. Gibson — 2454

Accounting and auditing practices in tax surveyor's office. Mr. Curtis — 2454

Federal criticism on provincial handling of Indian demonstrations. Mr. Wallace

— 2454

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

Division

on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 2455

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 3). Third reading — 2455

Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 4). Third reading — 2455

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 9). Third reading — 2456

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 10). Third reading — 2456

Securities Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 20). Third reading — 2456

Police Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 46). Third reading — 2456

Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 48). Third reading — 2456

Perpetuities Act (Bill 1). Third reading. — 2456

Administration Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 5). Third reading — 2456

Cooperative Associations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 6). Third reading — 2456

Farmers' and Women's Institutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 7). Committee, report

and third reading — 2456

Bee Act (Bill 45). Committee stage.

section 3. Mrs. Jordan — 2456

section 8. Mrs. Jordan — 2457

section 10. Mrs. Jordan — 2458

section 29. Mrs. Jordan — 2459

Report and third reading — 2460

Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 65). Committee

stage.

section 3. Mr. Phillips — 2460

section 4. Mr. Phillips — 2461

section 5. Mrs. Jordan — 2462

Report and third reading — 2466

Status of Men and Women Amendment Act (Bill 75). Committee stage.

section 11. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2466

Report and third reading — 2467

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975 (Bill 23). Committee, report and third

reading — 2467

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment

Act, 1975 (Bill 25). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Smith — 2467

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

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

today is Mayor Ron Andrews of the District of North Vancouver, a gentleman who's

made a great contribution not only there but in the regional district and the

Municipal Finance Authority. I'd like the House to welcome him at this time.

MR. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would ask the House to welcome

the federal House Leader of the New Democratic Party and the

leadership candidate for that party, Mr. Ed Broadbent.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): I'd just like to

add my welcome to the very distinguished mayor of the District

of North Vancouver, and a worthy opponent in the last election

campaign.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): We have a visitor in the gallery today

who's from a long way away. Mr. Arne Anderson, who is an active

participant in U.S. politics in the Los Angeles area, is here

today with Duncan Graham from Delta, and I hope the House will

make them welcome.

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

Speaker's gallery today I have two very good friends from the City of Kimberley.

It's their first visit to the legislative chambers and I hope that you will

make them welcome — not only welcome, but that they'll be able to go with a

good impression of what goes on in the House. The names of the two people are

Adele Buchan and Marie Martin.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've only been blessed with one godson,

but I'm very pleased that he's with us today. His name is

Stephen Yee from Vancouver.

Introduction of bills.

PERSONAL INFORMATION REPORTING

On a motion by Hon. Ms. Young, Bill 79, Personal

Information Reporting Amendment Act, 1975, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Oral questions.

ICBC SERVICES DURING STRIKE

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Transport and

Communications. Can the Minister advise the House whether

services are being provided by ICBC in all areas of British

Columbia today?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications): To the best of my knowledge, yes, services are

being provided. There was a press release made in Vancouver

this morning by the general manager of the corporation, and an

ad is being placed in the newspapers which regrets any problems

that may arise out of the strike taking place right now on the

part of the employees of the corporation. It carries

instructions to anyone who may have to have a claim under

Autoplan, and it says:

"If you have an accident and your vehicle can be safely and

legally driven, there is no need to immediately report your

claim. Simply record all the necessary details. When the strike

is settled, report to a claims centre at your earliest

convenience and the claim will be handled in the usual

pre-strike manner.

"If your vehicle cannot be safely and legally driven and you

require immediate repairs, have the vehicle towed to the repair

shop of your choice. Two estimates of repair should be

obtained, providing additional towing charges are not incurred.

Have your driver's licence and driver's certificate with

you.

"It is unfortunate, but you will be required to assume

responsibility for the payment of your deductible at this time.

When the strike is settled, report the details of the accident

to a claims centre. After legal liability has been determined,

the corporation will pay the deductible amount where

appropriate. If you are not responsible in any way for the

accident, you will be reimbursed entirely for your deductible.

If the accident results in bodily injury, police will

automatically report the details to the corporation.

"Insofar as claims under other ICBC policies are concerned,

you are asked to report the claim to an insurance agent, and he

will take all the necessary information."

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental. My question was: are services

being provided in all areas? I think the Minister said yes. Can

the Minister guarantee that they have a contingency plan that

all services and all offices will remain open during the

strike? Are officials being encouraged to cross picket

lines?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Crossing a picket line is entirely a

personal matter. I don't know what you

[ Page 2452 ]

mean by all offices....

MR. BENNETT: All claims centres — all offices.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've just read to you the procedure to be

used in view of the strike situation.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification: on

my first question the Minister said that all offices were

open.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I didn't.

MR. BENNETT: I asked if all services were open and being

provided in the province. I just wanted a clarification.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm afraid you muffed the question

because you asked me if services would be available all over

the province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said: "Certainly services will be

available." In our minds, the services will be available.

EFFECT OF STRIKE ON

DRIVER DOCUMENTATION

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Is the Hon. Minister

prepared to give a definitive statement today about those

people who may not have the necessary legal driving

requirements as a result of the shutdown of ICBC? Will there be

a moratorium on prosecutions under these circumstances?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think, Mr. Speaker, it's always been

illegal and against the law to drive without having met the

legal requirements. Anyone who did this prior to today was

breaking the law and should not have done so. No one should

drive an automobile in this province unless they have met the

legal requirements, with or without a strike. No one should

drive a vehicle without having met the legal requirements.

MR. GARDOM: Just a supplementary, then. It means this, does

it not, Mr. Minister: those people who are not able to receive

the legal requirements as a result of the strike will have to

keep off the road? Is that your direction to them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's always been that way. I'm not a

lawyer, but I understand that's always been the way.

ASBESTOS FIBRE CONTENT IN AIR

AT CASSIAR ASBESTOS CORP. MINE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Mines if it is correct that the amount of asbestos

fibres in the air at the Cassiar Asbestos Corp. mine is 125

times the legal limit.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Member asked

that question because I expected a question like that today. It

came over the air last night from CBC, and I was called on the

phone about 10 o'clock. They got a report that's about two

months old. Our experts had been in Cassiar at that time and

found that the legal limits were too high. They gave orders to

improve them. They went back a month afterwards; it was

improved but still out of line. They ordered them to close down

at that time and then got them to agree to set up a new system

of filtration for the dust requirements in the Cassiar Asbestos

mines. We are on top of this situation and it's being looked

after.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the

Minister could tell us — I'm not sure from his answer — whether

the mine is in operation at the moment. If it is, I think it's

only right that we should know exactly what the level is, and

how far in excess of the safe human level is the actual

situation at the mine today. What figures are available?

The publicity coming in every day about asbestos shows that

this is a tremendous problem in society, and not just to the

people who work in the mine. Asbestos, period, is a very big

problem which is becoming more and more serious in society. I

think we should know if the workers are working beyond the safe

level, however small the excess. Then I suggest the Minister

should take immediate action to close the mine.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, at the present time in any

place in the mine that is in any way in excess, they've got to

wear respirators — protective equipment — so that it will not

affect them. If you remember a couple of years ago, they had an

examination of all the men of long standing in Cassiar

Asbestos, and they didn't find anyone with asbestosis at that

time. Nevertheless, all the precautions are being taken, I'll

guarantee you that.

MR. WALLACE: The fact is that the ravages of asbestosis

develop 20 or 30 years after the person has been exposed. I

wonder how frequently inspectors check the Cassiar mine and how

often medical reassessments have been carried out.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, it was inspected, I believe,

in April or May. I was talking to

[ Page 2453 ]

them this morning and they are going in there again to check

again now, so I think that everything is being done that is

possible to be done.

MR. WALLACE: What about the medicals?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I can't answer that. That's maybe the

Health department.

MILL RATE LIMITATIONS

MR. H. A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it

was a good question but it's out of date already. To the

Minister of Municipal Affairs: I wonder with respect to

section

206(2) of the Municipal Act — that is, mill rate limitations —

if the Minister's department has received any requests from

municipalities seeking direction with respect to these mill

rate limitations which are still in effect. If so, what

direction is being given to the municipalities so

inquiring?

HON. J. G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, I

have had a few questions with regard to it and also from the

UBCM. I expect that I will be presenting legislation to the

assembly later on this month which will alleviate some of the

problems.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

fact that the deadline for setting of mill rates was May 15, a

date now passed, I wonder if the Minister is aware of the fact

and prepared to act in view of the fact that because the

limitations are still in effect and not covered by amending

legislation, indeed, some property tax notices might be

considered invalid by the recipients and contested in the

courts.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Those are always possibilities.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the....

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if you could give way for a second.

There appears to be one more supplementary on this by the

Member for Langley.

MR. R. H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Well, Mr. Speaker, I would

just like the Minister to advise the House whether or not that

legislation that he is going to be bringing in later this month

will be retroactive legislation and whether or not any

municipal clerk or administrator has so far allowed his council

to exceed those mill rate limits.

MR. SPEAKER: Surely that's out of order at this time. You are asking

for information still not before the House....

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the second part of the question is not

asking for that kind of information. Has any municipality

exceeded those mill rate limits at this time, that the Minister

is aware of?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No.

MR. McCLELLAND: Then what's the need for legislation?

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary on the same

subject to the Minister....

HON. MR. LORIMER: We take action before it's absolutely

necessary. We can foresee things coming and we like to get our

tack in order before an emergency....

MR. CURTIS: Would that it were true, Mr. Speaker, would that

it were true!

A supplementary. Has the Minister or his department directed

any municipalities to postpone the mailing of their tax notices

awaiting the arrival of this legislation which the Minister

spoke of many weeks ago?

HON. MR. LORIMER: This is a fishing expedition. To my

knowledge, no such letters have gone forward.

MR. CURTIS: A fatuous answer.

FERRY PREBOARDING PRIVILEGES

MR. D. A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Minister of

Transport and Communications: I don't want to tax his failing

voice; he must have done a lot of shouting over the weekend. I

would like to ask whether the memorandum dated October 11,

1973, concerning priority and preboarding on government

ferries was suspended last Friday to permit cabinet Ministers

to avoid lineups on their way to the NDP weekend

convention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My voice was failing a week ago. You may

not have noticed, but perhaps you weren't here on Friday. It

was even worse on Friday. It's getting better.

I would have to check that. What date did you say the

memorandum was?

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: The memorandum was October 11, 1973. The

suspension was Friday, May 16, 1975.

[ Page 2454 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll have to check the memorandum.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.

USE OF GRANTS BY

STRATA CORPORATIONS ASSOCIATION

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Housing: Some time ago it was announced that there was an

$18,000 grant given to the B.C. Association of Strata

Corporations, and $2,000 of that grant, according to the head

of that organization, Jean-Pierre Dehm, was spent for an annual

meeting. I wonder if the Minister could tell us how many

members the B.C. Association of Strata Corporations has, how

many attended that annual meeting and where it was held.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that

question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and try to get the information

to the Hon. Member.

STUDENT EMPLOYMENT

BY MINES DEPARTMENT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources: is the Minister aware of reports

of a cutback in summer student employment in his department and

could he indicate the number of jobs this year, as compared to

last?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll take it as notice.

ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING PRACTICES

IN TAX SURVEYOR'S OFFICE

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the

Minister could assure us that accounting and auditing practices

in the office of the surveyor of taxes with respect to

property-tax refund payments are as complete and effective as

he would wish.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What kind of question is that?

MR. CURTIS: Well, I'll be happy to pass to the Minister of

Finance or file with the House, Mr. Speaker, the reason for the

question, a letter dated May 10, from a resident of Salt Spring

Island who says:

"At the beginning of March I received a refund of $551.98.

At the beginning of April I received a refund of $551.98. I've been waiting

for a notification from the surveyor of taxes that there has been a duplication,

but apparently none is forthcoming. I do not wish to keep money

I am not entitled to, so I am enclosing a cheque for $551.98.

Copies of vouchers are attached."

HON. MR. BARRETT: I hope you send that over, and I

appreciate your efforts to go through the usual channels, Mr.

Member.

MR. CURTIS: As a matter of fact, that's already been

done.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh? Then why didn't you tell the

House?

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister with respect to accounting

and auditing practices within the office of the surveyor of taxes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You asked the question without even

telling me what you were talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That question doesn't

qualify.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame! Shame!

FEDERAL CRITICISM ON PROVINCIAL

HANDLING OF INDIAN DEMONSTRATIONS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Attorney-General a question with regard to statements by the

federal Indian Affairs Minister, Judd Buchanan, that he's very

unhappy with the Attorney-General's handling of demonstrations

by Indians in British Columbia. Has the Attorney-General

subsequently been in touch with Mr. Buchanan, and has there

been any discussion about the Attorney-General's proposals to

deal with the illegal occupation of federal buildings by

Indians?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I take exceptions to

the unhappiness of the Hon. Mr. Buchanan with the efforts we

made in the case of the Pacific Centre. I paid compliments in

this House to the work of the team we had on the spot, led by

Mr. Vickers and Mr. Hogarth. I complimented the leaders of the

B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs, Bill Wilson and Lou Demerais, and

I think we handled a tinder situation in a very capable manner

at that time. I really congratulate my team.

I think, with all respect, that the Hon. Minister from

Ottawa was misjudging the situation.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave

to suspend rule 48 and move motion 17 standing in my name on

the order paper.

[ Page 2455 ]

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was leave denied?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, leave was denied. Did the Hon. Member not

hear?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear any noes?

MR. SPEAKER: It was pretty obvious.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: I never heard a no.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Neither did I.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you serious in that statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: I am serious.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a awful fog in the aisle, then, because

I could hear very distinctly from the middle of the aisle.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the rules

be suspended to allow the moving without notice of the motion

appearing on page 6 of Votes and Proceedings for Friday,

May 16, under the name of the Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of

Education).

Leave not granted.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I heard some noes that time, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: So did I.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Who said no for that? Who said no?

MR. SPEAKER: I have heard noes from both sides now. Could we

get on with the next order of business, please?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093 — continued.

HON R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman,

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Lea

Young

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a

division took place in committee and asks leave that the

division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Public bills and orders. Third reading of

Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 3 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Third reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

INVESTMENT CONTRACTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

[ Page 2456 ]

Bill 4 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Third reading of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 9 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Third reading of Bill 10, Mr.

Speaker.

FAIR SALES PRACTICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 10 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Third reading of Bill 20, Mr.

Speaker.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 20 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Third reading of Bill 46, Mr.

Speaker.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 46 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Third reading of Bill 48, Mr.

Speaker.

MORTGAGE BROKERS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 48 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on bills, Mr. Speaker.

Report on Bill 1.

PERPETUITIES ACT

Bill 1 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 5 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 6 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, committee on bills.

Committee on Bill 7.

FARMERS' AND WOMENS' INSTITUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I

move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Farmers' and Women's Institutes Amendment Act, 1975,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

BEE ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 45; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, on

section

3, I wonder if the Minister would advise the House if he has

any intentions of extending educational programmes for those

wishing to enter into beekeeping either as a hobby or on a

professional basis, and also of making it more available to

those who now wish to upgrade their standards.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it won't be this department

that will be extending it, but some of the regional colleges

are doing it or are looking into it. As the pressure from the

community builds, I'm sure more of the regional colleges will

get involved in this kind of programme. Malaspina College in my

own

[ Page

2457 ]

area, for example, has been offering such a course for

several years now.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I

notice there's no grandfather clause in here whereby people who

have been in the bee business for quite some number of years

automatically qualify for a certificate. Will it be made easy

for these people who have been in the business to get the

certificate? Will the questionnaires or examinations be made in

areas where a lot of bees presently exist so that it won't work

a hardship on these people who have been in the business for

quite some time?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is not a new

certificate; this is a very old certificate — this procedure of

having a bee master certificate. It's always given as a result

of passing a course. Even though people have been in the bee

business for some time, that doesn't mean that they would

qualify for a bee master's certificate. We are finding out more

about bee diseases all of the time, and even for one who has

had a lot of experience it would be well worthwhile attending a

course in identifying bee diseases and know the control methods

before that person is granted a certificate which really makes

him eligible to be appointed as a part-time inspector more than

anything else.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't wish to be repetitive here, but just

by point of clarification: as you realize, a lot of these bees

are picked up in the California area. In that area, are these

bees inspected? Are the people who sell these bees into foreign

markets well-qualified to make sure that bees are not imported

into the country? Is there any inspection at the border? Just

as a point of clarification.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, they are inspected, and they

have to be able to produce the records of inspection on

crossing the border.

Section 3 approved.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MRS. JORDAN: On

section 8, Mr. Chairman. I believe this is

the same in the other Act: there is no prescribed fee for a

deposit if a beekeeper wishes to appeal a decision by an

inspector. I wonder if the Minister could outline to the House

what the fee generally is, how it is arrived at and why he

didn't include in that

section a prescribed fee that could be

adjusted from time to time by legislation or regulation.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, there is no provision in

the Act anywhere for remuneration for this board which the

Minister would set up in case of an appeal. I would ask why

this has not been included in the Act, what remuneration the

Minister intends to pay the chairman and those appointed, and

on what basis.

I must again strongly object to the powers that are vested

in the Minister under this

section of the Act. It is an appeals

section allowing producers to appeal a decision by

government-employed and government-appointed inspectors. When

one reads the

section one sees that all members of the board —

a three-man board — are appointed by the Minister himself

without recommendations from anyone. I strongly suggest and

urge the Minister that for

section 8(3)(

c) there should be

recommendations for that third person submitted by the industry

at large and, perhaps, by educational institutions.

Those names should be kept on file with a selection

preference, donated, perhaps, by ballot by the members of the

association at large and then appointed by the Minister. This

would leave those who are going to use the appeal procedure

feeling much more confident, I am sure, that those on the board

would be rendering not only a knowledgeable decision but also a

very impartial decision, and it would remove the Minister from

any suggestion that he would be imposing his wish on the board

through having complete control of the appointment and no

avenue of appeal for those offended by those appointments.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the conditions under

which the registration would be cancelled are outlined in the

previous section. Subsection (1) of that, for example, points

out that it may be at the request of the beekeeper involved,

and subsection (2) is generally where the person has ceased to

be a beekeeper or, for one reason or another, is obviously

contravening the legislation. There has to be some avenue of

appeal for circumstances like that. The fee for the appeal....

I believe this

section is new; as I recall it, that wasn't in

the previous legislation. The Hon. Member for Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) suggests it is the same, but I think — and I could be

wrong — it's a new section.

Certainly we would discuss this with the beekeepers'

association, the whole appeal procedure. The amount of the

deposit even is something we would discuss with the bee

association before we get involved in this. It's something that

I think will be a very rare occurrence. It's only where either

a person has given up the business or is obviously contravening

the legislation. It's not often that we are going to be faced

with this kind of a situation. Regulations will be drawn up to

provide for appeals in the event they should become necessary.

They will be discussed, as

[ Page 2458 ]

are all of our regulations. They will be discussed with the

people involved before we do pass it in cabinet.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister didn't outline how the members of

the board were to be paid.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Again, Mr. Chairman, we have not really

given any thought to this. I suggest that it's something we

would discuss with the industry before we even consider whether

or not they would be paid. I think the suggestion — in areas

where there are educational institutions involved in the bee

master's certificate programme, for example — that it

would be a good idea to involve someone from that institution

to give them the experience and to give the beekeeping industry

in that area that much closer liaison with the educational

institution is a good idea.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into a

prolonged debate about this but I am disturbed by the

Minister's comments. He is asking us to pass legislation here

which gives him very wide powers in terms of appointing members

to a board, in terms of saying whether or not they should be

paid, in terms of setting a fee for the producer who might wish

to avail himself of the services of this board through appeal.

Then to indicate that there has been no thought given to any of

these matters I find very disturbing.

I recognize that the appeal procedure may, indeed, be very

rare, but I think the fact that it is rare is all the more

reason for it to be clearly spelled out in the legislation and

in the regulations exactly what the procedures are and exactly

what the fees will be, in order that under these rare

circumstances there can't be more controversy surrounding the

particular issue that one would expect under normal

circumstances. I must say I feel that the Minister is leaving

himself open to severe criticism on these points.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's just where the

Member and I

part company. In this particular respect I feel it

is more appropriate to discuss the legislation in detail in the

House before I start discussing the workings of that

legislation with the industry. The industry certainly has been

consulted about the general terms of the legislation, and they

have agreed with the legislation as it is now. But with respect

to the operations of the details of it, I think it would be an

error on my part to get into that kind of a discussion until I

have found out if the House is going to give me this kind of

legislation. I feel that I am going the better route in

bringing the legislation to the House, pointing out that the

details of it will be worked out with the industry and outlined

in regulations that will be passed by order-in-council.

MRS. JORDAN: Is this a change in policy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not for this Minister.

Section 8 approved.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MRS. JORDAN: Well,

section 10 deals with the suppression of

diseases to bees in the Province of British Columbia. It states

that for the purpose of preventing the spread of diseases, a

person who brings bees into the province shall report their

presence to the head, apiculture branch, in accordance with

regulations. I don't think anyone would quibble with this, but

I did point out to the Minister in second reading that there is

a severe problem in these reportings and I think it's foolhardy

to suspect, with the problems we have had in the past, that

there is not going to be a continuation in the future.

There are bees being transported around the province and

from one province to the other which are not registered and are

not inspected when they come into the province. That's part of

the reason for the Act.

I would ask the Minister if he will accept my suggestion and

have an outline in all the weigh scales in the Province of

British Columbia whereby, even though those operating the weigh

scales are not familiar with beekeeping as such, they would be

aware of the problem and they would be required to file with

the Department of Agriculture the transporting of any bees

which can't provide a bona fide registration. I believe in this

way, those bringing bees into British Columbia, perhaps quite

innocently, would be then in a position to be notified

officially of the registration requirements in the Province of

British Columbia. Conversely, the Department of Agriculture and

this specific branch would be aware of the movement of any bees

in and out of the Province, whether they were registered or

not.

Would the Minister be willing to undertake this type of a

programme? It certainly would add to cost and really no extra

work, but it would help reinforce the Act.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The regulations controlling the movement

of bees will be filed with the people at the points of entry

between the United States and British Columbia. That's easy.

When it comes to points of entry between British Columbia and

Alberta, it's a bit more difficult. Weigh stations — there's one

possibility, but they aren't always open.

I can only say that in the regulations we will try to

provide, to the best of our ability, for the kind of control

that we want in this registration, but the onus

[ Page 2459 ]

will still be on the beekeeper himself or herself to make

sure that the movement of bees into the province is

reported.

Section 10 approved.

Sections 11 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the Minister would clarify

section

29 for us, and why he feels the need for this Ministerial

authority to control the size of colonies and certify them when

they are used in the pollination of agricultural crops.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The beekeepers do undertake to contract

with orchardists for the services of the bees, and it's at a

price for hives. I believe this

section is to provide that when

a beekeeper is contracting his bees on the basis of a hive of

bees, he is contracting for a reasonable number of bees and

reasonable service for the orchardist.

MRS. JORDAN: I still don't follow why there would need to be

Ministerial discretion. I assume that — and it always will be —

a contract between a beekeeper and an orchardist or producer,

for example, is an open contract between the two. It's the

orchardist who decides how many colonies he's going to need to

service his alfalfa crop or his fruit crop, and this would be

decided between him and the beekeeper. I didn't follow, from

the Minister's statement, why there would need to be

Ministerial control. If the beekeeper doesn't produce,

presumably the orchardist or the producer is not going to enter

into a contract with him again or would take civil action

rather than appealing to the Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's a definition as to just exactly what

is a colony of bees. I've just been given something to read by

the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) — I'm not sure

whether I should quote source or not, (laughter) but it's with

respect to this bill and perhaps it has some bearing on this

section:

"The cappings of the aphis melipora

Are wondrous sights to see;

That's mostly because apiculturists

Don't really care for the

bee." (Laughter.)

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Does that answer

your questions?

MRS. JORDAN: What have you got against the birds and the bees? The Minister's

having trouble answering my questions too.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, what I've been trying to say is that

this

section does give me the authority, if I'm called upon to

exercise that authority at any time, to say whether or not what

is professed to be a colony of bees is, indeed, a colony. If

you read the section, particularly subsection (4), the number

of active combs of bees or the square inches of the brood per

colony is a measure of the queen's activity. If the queen in

the hive is not active enough to meet the standards of the

colony, then that particular hive is not really going to do the

work of what would ordinarily be defined as a hive.

As the Member says, it's up to the apiculturist and the

orchardist to come to some agreement on this, but if an

apiculturist is defrauding the orchardist and moving in a bunch

of boxes with a few bees in each box and they aren't really

colonies in the true sense of the word, then I may define

whether or not that apiculturist is, indeed, serving the

orchardist properly, and may give evidence, if called upon, in

a civil case.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I suggest, Mr. Minister, that you really

don't understand this

section of the Act, with all due respect.

The indication that you leave with this House in not truly

understanding the Act is that you, as Minister, are going to

enter into very close control of the individual habits and

practices of the beekeepers in this province. One must question

seriously if this isn't an extension of your authority that is

beyond what is desired by the producers of this province.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly concede that

I have difficulty in explaining to someone who doesn't want to

understand it just what the understanding is, but I understand

it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want the Minister to assure the House.

We may be looking at apple orchards where it is necessary to

have pollination, but in legume crops a lot of hives are put

there strictly for the purpose of collecting honey. I would

hope that we are not going to have regulations that if you have

a certain acreage of clover growing for instance, you can't put

just one hive in there, but that you could put as many as you

want to or as few as you want to.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it says he "may," if I read the.... "An

inspection and certification shall be made at the request of a

beekeeper...." I thought this was permissive, but it says "shall."

Maybe you would just assure me. As I say, with fruit crops it may be

different — you may have to have a specified number of bees per tree,

or something like that — but

[ Page 2460 ]

when you are growing legumes, it is an entirely different

situation.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I certainly give the Member the assurance

that we are not going out looking for trouble. There are other

sections of the legislation that say how many hives there shall

be in a certain area that is going to be harvested for honey,

but when is a hive a hive? We are always inspecting hives. I

don't mean every day we are inspecting every hive, but there is

a continual inspection programme going on for disease control.

Now if the inspectors, in carrying out this continuing

programme, come across hives which are not truly hives, in the

sense that the queen is not active, then that would not be

counted; it would simply be counted as a non-hive, if you like.

This

section would give them the authority to say that that

particular hive of bees is not a true colony. But we are not

going to enter into arguments between apiculturists and

orchardists, or apiculturists and raisers of legumes, unless we

are called upon.

Section 29 approved.

Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 45, Bee Act, reported complete without amendment, read

a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STR ACHAN: Committee on Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I presume one of the purposes of

this

section is to allow the Minister to invest in the

lamb-processing plant in Lacombe. Has there been any effort on

behalf of the Minister to look into the feasibility of

establishing that plant in British Columbia? In future cases,

rather than invest outside of the province, would the Minister assure the House

that no investments will be made outside of the province where

it is at all possible or feasible to have the plant established

within the borders of British Columbia?

For instance, we could have the bee producers in the Peace

River area wanting the government to invest in a

honey-processing plant in Edmonton. I'd just like the Minister

to ensure us that where possible those facilities will be in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There have been two suggestions for

involvement by B.C. producers in plants outside of B.C. One is

the lamb-processing plant in Innisfail, I believe, rather than

Lacombe, and the other is the proposed rapeseed plant. Those

are the only two that have come to my attention. In both cases,

the large bulk of the production industry is on the Alberta

side of the border. In both cases, I've said to the producers

that in the event that the attempt to get one started on the

Alberta side fails for one reason or another, then I'd be very

interested in looking at the possibility of establishing that

kind of a plant on the B.C. side of the border, because then

the Alberta produce could flow into our plant. But it would

seem that in both cases it would not be practical to have two

such plants, at least not in the foreseeable future.

For the beginning at least, and to give our own lamb

production industry an opportunity to grow perhaps to the point

where we might need an industry here, the better way to go

would be to cooperate in the Alberta plant.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one further short question. I hope that

the Minister would be able to assure me that once the

investments are made in plants, particularly in the

lamb-processing plant in Innisfail, there would be sufficient

regulations built into the loan to ensure that the lamb

producers on the British Columbia side of the border are going

to be treated fairly with the producers on the Alberta side,

and that should there be other cases where there are producers

on both sides of the border, producers on either side of the

border, regardless of where their plant is, are treated

equally. In a case, for instance, where there might be an

overload of lambs going through the processing plant, farmers

on both sides of the border, particularly if the plant happens

to be in Alberta, will be treated equally with the producers on

the other side of the border. Just because they have the plant,

we wouldn't want them to discriminate, particularly where we

have a financial interest in it. Maybe the Minister could

advise me just what types of precautions he's going to take in

this regard.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There are two considerations, Mr.

Chairman, that we did discuss

[ Page 2461 ]

with the Alberta people. One of them was the handling of the

product, as the Member pointed out; the other was the cost of

freighting the animals to the plant. In both cases, the people

representing the Alberta producers, the Minister of

Agriculture, the Hon. Hugh Horner, at the time.... we

discussed this with him and he was only too happy to

accommodate the problems that we have in that we're further

away from the proposed plant than are their own producers. They

wanted our participation and were quite willing to enter into

an arrangement that would guarantee our producers that the

animals would be purchased f.o.b. the farm or some central

marshalling point in B.C. and that there would be guaranteed

flow through the plant of our product in proportion to the

Alberta product.

MR. PHILLIPS: My final question: supposing that we run into

a situation where British Columbia wants the processed product

returned and maybe Alberta wants to.... For instance, in the

case of lamb, we're importing lamb into British Columbia from

New Zealand. Naturally, the quality just doesn't compare with

Peace River lamb. What guarantees are we going to have if the

market in British Columbia requires the finished product to

come back? How are we going to handle that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I was not in on any

discussions with respect to the marketing of the product by the

cooperative. It is a cooperative organization; the B.C.

producers will be members of that organization. They always

have the alternative, and we could help them with alternatives

that would divert the product through B.C. packing plants, if

necessary. Our relations with the Alberta people have been so

good that I expect they would be cooperative in that as well,

but I have not entered into negotiations with respect to the

distribution of a product.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could I ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if

before you make a final agreement or deal you will discuss this

with the Alberta government to ensure that, as I say, we should

have first refusal on a B.C. product if we require it? I think

the people of the great lower mainland and the Vancouver and

Victoria area should have the treat of having that superior

lamb product here — nothing against Saltspring Island or Cortes

lamb, but there isn't sufficient quantity. I think that over

and above the exports from New Zealand and Australia they

should certainly have first refusal, particularly if we're

going to be involved in putting money into the processing

plant.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll give that assurance, Mr.

Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: When you look to 2A(3) it says: "A

producer-owned organization to which subsection (1) applies

shall be deemed to be an agricultural enterprise for the

purposes of sections 3 to 9." If I interpret that correctly,

this again is expanding the sphere within which the Minister,

on behalf of the government, can invest moneys.

If I understand it correctly, this allows a producer-owned

organization to be almost virtually taken over by government

control through investment, yet still be considered a co-op and

still be considered an agricultural enterprise. This could

include trucking; it could include wholesaling of food produce

not necessarily produced in British Columbia. I wonder if the

Minister would outline why he felt this type of extension of

power was necessary, apart from the interest in the processing

plant, meat-packing plant, which my colleague just spoke

about.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, all it does is make the same

sections of the Act that apply to farm products industries

strictly located in B.C. applicable to any participation in

such industries by B.C. producers in jurisdictions other than

those within the boundaries of British Columbia. We had to

refer to all those sections to make sure that we didn't find we

were hamstrung from operating in that respect. I don't see this

as giving us any new powers other than the powers to invest or

to assist producers in investing in farm products industries in

Alberta. That's really what we're aimed at.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one question on

section 2. In

section 2

it says: "...a condition of every loan, grant...." We

have had some discussions in this House about loan-grants. It

does have a comma in there, but does it mean loan or grant...so that we can delineate between a loan and a grant?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't quite....

Would you say that again?

MR. PHILLIPS: It says: "...a condition of every loan,

grant...." Do you mean loan or grant?

At the top of page 2: "By striking out 'it shall be a

condition of every loan,' and substituting, 'it is a condition

of every loan, grant,'..." do you mean loan or grant?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, there is a comma there. Then we go

to read subsection (3): "it is a condition of every loan,

grant, or in the case of a

[ Page 2462 ]

grant and so on. So the comma is there.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps the Minister would correct me if I'm

wrong. Is this to understand that

section 5, which amends

section 9 in the original Act, is to extend the powers of the

Minister to grant or loan moneys up to $3 million per

enterprise?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't see the figure $3 million

here.

MRS. JORDAN: At the very left. It is: "cancel indebtedness

under

section 3(

g) or (h), at any time that the total amount of

grants in that fiscal year exceeds $3 million."

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. Yes, I was looking earlier in

this because I knew you had a bunch of questions about this

section that were not answered in second reading. That's why I

was trying to find it.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. Could you perhaps just clarify the points

here because, if I understand it correctly, it is elaborating

his ability to grant more money to individual enterprises.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, more in total.

Theoretically, it could all be given to one enterprise, that's

true.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just not sure. I did in second reading

offer to give more answers if there were questions. Is the

Member for North Okanagan satisfied with

section 5? There were

other questions you asked about the number of enterprises,

shareholders — all those questions. I don't want to bother the

House with them because I don't think anyone else is

interested, but if the Member wants them....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister did give his

commitment that these would be available today. I'm afraid I

was taking him at his word and expecting a

summary of the

investments. Does the Minister have them available in printed

form?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's fine if that is all the Member

desires, Mr. Chairman. I will just send it all to her in

printed form.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would rather have had it before today's

sitting so that we could have gone through it, analysed it, and questioned the

Minister individually because, as I understand it, there is a fair amount of money out on various enterprises. I'm

sure most of them are most worthy, but the Minister is aware

that we are very concerned about exactly on what he is

predicating the development of the poultry processing plant in

the interior, for example.

As the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) likes to jump on the

bandwagon and say: "Are you for it or against' it?" — this is not

a matter of being for or agin'. There has to be some assurance

given to this House and to the taxpayers of British Columbia

that loans that are being advanced and enterprises that are

being started in the agricultural

section by this Minister have

sound reasoning behind them. On the interior poultry processing

plant, I repeatedly asked the Minister upon what reports and

analyses he has based his faith in its development. There have

been conflicting statements that it will not even see the light

of day as far as balancing its books for three years, but that

the Minister is convinced he can increase the fresh output of

that processing plant on a local basis in order to do this.

I won't go over other questions, but there is serious

concern, Mr. Minister. If the government wishes to proceed with

this plant and if it is to be publicly subsidized, this House

should know how long the Minister expects it to be subsidized

and how he predicates his sales in terms of this province and

perhaps other provinces. In what manner does he predicate these

sales so that they will be able to balance their books, for

example, in three years? Or does the Minister anticipate it

will be subsidized for many years?

I feel that these are points that the Minister was going to

bring out under this

section so that I wouldn't have to repeat

the questions. I think he knows the concern. Will the Minister

file with this House the report done within the department —

the feasibility study — on this plant so that we can examine

it? Perhaps the Minister should have some outside opinions on

the establishment of this plant not necessarily to say that it

shouldn't be established but it may be able to bring forth some

new avenues of promotion which would alleviate the necessity

for a subsidy and many other factors that would be of great

interest to this House. They should be read into the record,

Mr. Chairman. I would ask the Minister to give his report now,

if he would, please, and read it into the record.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, that was part of the

question, as I understood it, that was asked in second reading.

And the other was: to what extent are we involved in

agricultural industries in the province already in this

programme, who are the shareholders, to what extent are the

directors shareholders, et cetera? So I'll read some of this

into the record, Mr. Chairman....

[ Page 2463 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, we would like to have a complete

report, please. This was the agreement the Minister made.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the agreement I made during

discussions in estimates was that I would file a report with

the House. One report was an

article from a magazine on poultry

diseases in the Fraser Valley. I have since found that, and

would have filed it in the House today, except that I let the

time go by without doing so. The second one was an in-house

report on the economic feasibility of the interior poultry

processing plant. That information is still being put together

by staff and will be presented by me in the House, as I

promised it would be.

The other questions — I thought the Member wanted to know

about the industries we're already involved in, but I think

maybe now she doesn't.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I do.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You do?

MRS. JORDAN: I've got about 50 different reports here, all

fragmented and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: All right, then. With respect to Pan-Ready

Poultry Ltd. there were direct loans of $2.4 million, loans

guaranteed of $1.1 million, share acquisitions of $100,010,

which gives us a 40 per cent interest in Pan-Ready Poultry

Ltd., an organization that owns Centennial Hatcheries as well

as Scott Processing Ltd. So the total investment and guarantee — in other words, the total involvement under this particular

legislation in Pan-Ready Poultry — is $3,600,010. The

shareholders of that, of course, are the government, 40 per

cent, and Pacific Poultry Co-op for the other 60 per cent.

IOK Poultry Ltd., one that we had hoped to get off the

ground about a year ago, we are still having some trouble

determining the best location for and the one for which I will

table reports as soon as I can get the material together.

Incidentally, there's been a very recent staff report, with

some outside assistance, that would indicate it's looking

better now than we had previously thought.

In any case, for the construction of the processing plant

and the acquisition of equipment: loan guarantees of $1.3

million and the same 40 per cent interest in the share capital

of that organization, $410. So there's an investment in that

enterprise — not an investment, mostly guarantee — but a total

commitment under this legislation of $1,300,410.

Swan Valley Foods Ltd. is one I discussed in some detail, I believe, in the

House last fall in which we now have a 20 per cent interest and will be getting

a further 10 per cent. It's currently being negotiated. The capital invested

in that is $50,163. That was the cost of a 10 per cent interest. The other 10

per cent has not yet been paid for. The loan guarantees there are $5 million.

So the total commitment under this legislation is $5,000,163. One of the directors

of Swan Valley Foods is William C. Piper, who has, I believe, a 20 per cent

interest himself. He has 23,295 common shares. He's a farmer at Creston. The

other directors are Gordon D. Leversage, Clarence D. Christensen, Jack C. Wiggin

and William D. Powry. Sig Peterson, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, is a

director of Swan Valley Foods Ltd., representing the government. He holds no

shares in it.

Sorry I didn't mention the directors. The directors of the

South Peace Dehy: Richard Johnson, who owns 61 voting preferred

shares; Clarence Vaynor, 30 voting preferred and 30 non-voting

common; Claude Benson, the same shareholding as Vaynor; Robert

Coutts, 20, voting preferred and 20 non-voting common; Jack

Daub, the department representative on that board of directors,

who hold no shares; Victor Nobbs, 10 voting preferred and 10

non-voting common; Don Peterson, 10 voting preferred, 10

non-voting common. IOK Poultry....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: South Peace Dehy. The total involvement

now: direct loan, $180,000; loan guarantees, $1.5 million;

share acquisition, $28,254 — a total of $1,708,254. That's it on

South Peace Dehy.

Keremeos Growers' Co-op. The involvement there is a loan

guarantee of $780,000.

Panco Poultry. Direct loan of $1.5 million, which was to

replace the direct loan Panco formerly had from the previous

owners, Federal Industries Ltd.; and then the share acquisition

is $4.8 million. So there's a total involvement there of $6.3

million.

That makes up the current total commitment, at the end of

April 30, 1975, of $18,738,837. There are a number of others

that are in an advanced stage and are awaiting approval of this

legislation.

In the B.C. tree fruits industry: the Tree-Fresh CA Storage,

for $2.4 million; Kootenay Dehy — that's another alfalfa

dehydrating plant — for $1.85 million; and a number of others —

about eight on the list. But those aren't approved yet, so they

aren't really appropriate to this.

The one that I missed that is not on top of this list, and

it's another one that isn't quite through yet but is very close

to it, is Chef-Ready Foods Ltd., which will involve a loan of

$85,000, and there's a long list of shareholders. The largest

share in it is 4,650 out of a total of about 30,000 shares.

Interjections.

[ Page 2464 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Those are the only two where there are any....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, we've looked at a couple more in the

Peace but they don't look good enough yet.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister indicate to us how Swan

Valley is progressing as a company, please?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The current stage of construction is that

the Richmond plant, which will be producing — it's still being

argued — something like 9 or 12 entrées, will be in operation,

hopefully, June 7. Now at that time they'll not be in full

scale operation, but they will be operating, hopefully, on June

7. The pilot plant has been closed down, the one that produced

the products I distributed in the Legislature when I talked

about this company some months ago. They built up enough of an

inventory to satisfy the market in the four Woodward's stores

that have had access to this product.

They're going to build up an inventory in the months of June

and July and at that time, hopefully, will have enough ahead so

that they will be able to supply all of the Woodward's stores

and other chains that have shown a real interest in

participating in promotion of this product — in particular

Safeway, which could have been supplied earlier, perhaps, but

said that they want to be assured that they'll have sufficient

product to put it into their whole organization before they

start accepting it. They seemed very pleased with what they had

seen of the product and want to be able to put it into every

store in the province when they do start.

What I'm saying is really that they haven't started

commercial production yet, but hopefully will. June 7 is the

target date.

The Creston Valley construction programme. They are

currently processing potatoes — fresh potatoes, not the french

fry product yet. They produced 19,000 tons of potatoes last

year and they're selling these now as whole potatoes. The

processing plant itself is under construction and expects to be

ready for production of french fries late in November or early

in December of this year. By this time, of course, they'll have

another crop. At the present date — at least, last week — they

were still planting potatoes, getting ready for the 1975 crop,

and expect to be processing some of that at least into french

fries late in 1975.

MRS. JORDAN: Could the Minister indicate, on the pilot

project for processing, what the financial picture turned out

to be?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't have the figures in my head. I do

know that a large part of what they had done in the pilot plant

has been charged to prepaid development expenses. From the

point of view of an operating statement, the first year's

statement will show a loss. They'll be writing off quite a

large amount of the prepaid expenses and development expenses

in the first year of operation.

From an accounting point of view, the company intends to

show a loss in its first two years of operation and build up,

from a corporation tax point of view, an entirely acceptable

procedure. They will show an accounting loss in these first two

years, because they feel they are going to need it in the third

year to pay the minimum amount of income tax in their third

year of operation.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister giving us these

facts. I must again stress, though, that to the Members of the

Legislature, in carrying out their duty and obligation that

they are charged with by the people of British Columbia, it

would be more helpful to have this type of information before

the session or shortly after the session commences in order

that, under the Minister's estimates, we can properly canvass

the investment of these public funds as well as properly

canvass the operations of these companies which must be

prepared to come into the realm of public scrutiny in the

Legislature if the government is to be a shareholder in these

companies. I hope that next year the Minister will do this.

It's very difficult securing the orders-in-council, press

releases and scurrying around behind the scenes to try and find

out what is really going on. It shouldn't be necessary. As I

mentioned before, there are public funds invested as

shareholders in these companies, and as such they should be

open to the scrutiny of this Legislature in time for Members to

properly analyse the operation of these companies and to see

that the public funds are properly protected.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll just give this assurance that as each

company has its official year-end, and as the statements are

ready, I am quite prepared to make them available to the

Members. But the timing is just wrong; I can't promise that

they will be available before my estimates. Certainly, the

previous year's will be available, but it depends on the date

of the year-end and the date of the estimates.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): While the

Minister is in such an informative mood, could he advise the

committee whether or not he has had occasion to cancel any

indebtedness under the powers in

section 9?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The answer is no. Nothing

[ Page 2465 ]

has been cancelled.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Minister to explain why this

product is not available. I have been trying to buy it and I

just can't find it available.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I've been trying to get some myself.

MR. PHILLIPS: The only other thing that bothers me is the

fact that I hope it won't be too long. And if it's going to be

available to Woodward's or to Safeway, will it be available so

that the small comer grocery store can have access to this

product if they desire? What is your marketing policy going to

be? I hope that you wouldn't just be giving Woodward's and

Safeway the sole right to merchandising the product, even in

the beginning. I realize you have some distribution

problem.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, in the beginning the

programme was to try and get some kind of measure of consumer

acceptance or otherwise of the product. That was why we chose

one particular store, a store that was determined by the

experts to be in the best location to get some evidence as to

the reactions of different people in the community — people of

different income levels and different age levels. And we

thought that was the best.

It was not intended to all that it would go beyond that

store until commercial quantities were available, but the

pressure was on because Woodward's were so anxious to get it

into more of their stores and, reluctantly, the pressure was

acceded to. It is our intention and the company's intention

that by midsummer it will be available for any wholesalers who

want to do it. But in working through an organization like

Safeway, for example, it's again another way of getting the

product into maximum exposure so that more people will see

about it, hear about and know about it. That would again

increase the pressure on the other wholesalers to supply it to

the assorted stores about which the Member is talking.

MR. PHILLIPS: One further question. As the plant grows, of

course, you will have merchandising in the other provinces so

that.... Pardon my ignorance, but how large is the plant? What

is your capacity? Will you be able to supply, or do you have a

second phase of construction ready to go?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The initial production is intended to have the capacity

to satisfy what is expected to be the B.C. requirement and half as much again.

There is room at the Richmond plant to expand the production about double that,

but that won't be needed for some time yet. We expect even the B.C. market,

for example, to take a couple of years to reach what we think is a reasonable

limit. It's expected that this type of product, within three years, will capture

2 per cent of the food market in the United States, and, of course, the situation

is likely to be the same in Canada.

MRS. JORDAN: First, going to the Minister's last point

regarding the output of the Richmond plant...and I must say,

I didn't realize they intended to develop this plant on the

lower mainland. It was my understanding — and I may have been

wrong — that this was to help bolster the secondary economy in

the Creston-Kootenay area, and to have the plant there. Perhaps

the Minister would comment on that.

The Minister mentioned that the product itself is going to

capture a large percentage of the American market as a type of

product. I would like to know if the product coming out of the

Richmond plant.... What studies have been done? Now it appears

it will be in terms of a competitive product in Alberta, for

example. Which product that you have studied will be the

closest competitor, and how do the Swan Valley products appear

price-wise in other provinces, as you see it now?

The other point I would like to ask about is the marketing

principles that the company is going to operate under as far as

distribution is concerned. The Minister mentioned during his

statement that they've offered the product to other wholesalers

in British Columbia, and I find this somewhat strange. It seems

to me that if this is a company operating with taxpayers' money

and in which the government is a shareholder, there should be

the opportunity for direct purchasing by the smaller

outlets.

Quite obviously, a major chain store can buy in volume and

enjoy a price benefit

whereas a small grocery store operating

in the northern part of the province or in the interior or in

the Kootenays would not be able to buy in volume and also would

have to go through a wholesaler. If this is going to operate

the way it seems to be, I would like to see a direct marketing

arrangement between the small operators, the independent

operators, and the manufacturing plant in order that they don't

have to pay again to go through a wholesaler.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

disabuse the Member of the idea that this is government money.

There is $50,163 of government money in what is currently

approximately a $10 million operation. The amount of actual

government money involved will not grow much. It may double

that $50,000 figure, and that would be about the extent of the

actual government money. There is the guarantee, but the money

that has been borrowed by the firm is amply secured by

[ Page 2466 ]

assets in addition to the government guarantee.

The marketing policy — and this is why I am a bit vague on

this — is something that the company, in its wisdom, will

decide. They are getting advice from people that I feel are

very qualified to give that kind of advice. But it is a company

that, for the present at least, looks as though it is being run

very successfully by the directors. For that reason I think

there is little to be gained by having the government

interfere. Our role there is really to act as some sort of a

watchdog over the operations of the company and make sure that

it is operating in a reasonably successful way, and hopefully

it will be developing B.C. agriculture.

As the Member points out, I am surprised at the Richmond

plant, but the Richmond plant as well will be using B.C.

produce. The samples that I distributed in the Legislature —

one was chicken stew, for example — used B.C. chicken and B.C.

vegetables. Apples was another one, using B.C. apples from the

interior, and of course the potatoes were from the lower Fraser

Valley, the very small potatoes.

I suppose the only one of the four products that I

introduced at that time which could be said to be not of B.C.

origin was the ravioli. But they are currently working on six

to eight other entrees, most of which will be made up entirely

of B.C. produce grown in the lower Fraser Valley.

The reason I am a bit vague as to the exact number, the

company would prefer to come out with a line of nine entrées.

The sellers, Safeway and Woodward's, would rather have a higher

number. So there is still some disagreement.

The product has been all along, and still is being very

carefully researched and watched by UBC — I've forgotten the

doctor's name right now. He's been in on the programme from the

very beginning.

The competition is largely from other processed foods, and

it is a processed food, after all. The competition is from

canned foods, and it's in a good position to compete with

canned goods in that it is so much lighter to carry, easier to

handle. It has competition from frozen foods, and the advantage

there is that you don't pay the costs of freezing, initially,

and of keeping it frozen, so it is much easier to handle.

Roughly 75 per cent of the people who tried the product

preferred it over canned and over frozen — not everybody, but

roughly 75 per cent of the tests that were made. So it would

seem to have excellent advantages from those points of

view.

It is using B.C. produce. There isn't much government money

in it.

I'm not sure whether I answered all the questions.

Section 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act,

1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

STATUS OF MEN AND WOMEN AMENDMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Could the Hon. Attorney-General explain

the reason for

section 11?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that was one of the most

difficult policy decisions we had to make in introducing this

bill. By the ancient law of England, a woman whose chastity is

impugned can sue for libel without proof of special damages.

The debate we had, which raged for several days, was whether or

not to apply that

section to a man, so that we would have

achieved equality whereby a man whose chastity was impugned

could likewise sue for libel without proof of special damages,

or whether we should abolish completely this archaic

section of

our laws. We chose, after a very close debate within the

department.... We took the opinion of everybody including the

secretaries. Everybody had a right to vote on this question

within the department. We decided that the way to go was to

abolish it completely.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: I'm grateful for that explanation, Mr.

Chairman. But what you're doing is taking away from women a

right which, I think.... You may say it was archaic, but I

think it is most necessary in the law today. I don't see why

this decision should be made by all those unchaste members of

the department. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How do you spell that?

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: There's no one chaste in your department...?

[ Page 2467 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It depends how you spell it.

C-H-A-S-E-D, yes!

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: I would have thought that this matter

would have been canvassed more among other groups in the

community. This is like the cardinals making the laws in regard

to what women may or may not do. I just don't think that all

those old men in the Attorney-General's department should be

allowed to take away this right so long established in the law

that women have had. You may think that I am treating this

lightly, but it seems to be unbelievable that a woman could be

defamed in this particular way and then be obliged to prove

special damage. Surely having been defamed is bad enough; but

when you come to seek your remedy, you are put to some kind of

test whereby you have to prove the damage that you have

suffered. This must double or even quadruple the consequence of

the defamation.

Sections 11 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Status of Men and Women Amendment Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 25.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY

(1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

chair.

section 1.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Seeing as there is only

one

section to the bill, I guess that is the only

section on

which I can speak, Mr. Chairman. This bill authorizes the

increase in the borrowing power of the B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority by a substantial amount. Perhaps that is needed in

some respects in view of the cost of developing power today,

but I do believe that we have to bring to the attention of this

House the secretive manner in which the Minister of Finance has

chosen to finance these corporations since he took office. At

one time there was accountability, Mr. Chairman, with respect

to the amount of money borrowed.

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

that in committee we are to deal with the details of the

section and therefore not recanvass the principle that has

already been debated in second reading. Will the Hon. Member

continue, please?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, there is only one section. The

section deals with the authority of the Crown to increase the

borrowing power from $2.25 billion to $3 billion, an increase

of $750 million. Now certainly in the debate on that particular

principle and in this

section of the bill, I have a right to

speak on the idea of increasing the borrowing power of B.C.

Hydro and Power Authority.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to inform you that in your absence during the second

reading I suggested to the Members that we go into detail

during this section. It was agreed to at that time by the Hon.

Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) as well. I don't know if the

other Member was in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North Peace River

continue?

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, now that we have

refreshed your memory as to when the debate would take place.

I'm sorry. You were not in the Chair at that time; I apologize,

but I bring to your

[ Page

2468 ]

attention the fact that it was agreed at that time that we

would debate it in committee stage because there is only one

section.

It would seem to me that the point is this. The Minister of

Finance has asked the Province of British Columbia and the

Members of this Legislative Assembly to increase the power of

B.C. Hydro to borrow $750 million more capital that their

present authority allows. In the past, much of the money

required for the financing of B.C. Hydro has been received

through internal financing on trust funds in the hands of the

provincial government. It was without doubt one of the soundest

methods of financing that we could achieve in any jurisdiction

in Canada. It allowed us, as citizens of the Province of

British Columbia, to participate through the interest that was

earned by those trust funds and at the same time provide the

capital funds required for financing the additional energy

requirements in the Province of British Columbia, expansion of

the B.C. Railway, and many of the services that people require

in a building society in a province such as ours.

But this whole system and the whole scheme has been changed,

Mr. Chairman, to the extent that now the Minister of Finance

has decided — I presume in concert with his other cabinet

Ministers — to borrow substantial amounts of money for capital

expansion in the Province of British Columbia through

undisclosed sources at undisclosed interest rates. We don't

know who, if this trend continues, will own British Columbia a

few years down the road. You know, it is interesting to hear

the Minister of Finance and some of his other cabinet

colleagues talk about the fact that we sold ourselves out to

the money changers in New York and that the Province of British

Columbia is in the hands of foreign ownership, and turn right

around, almost in the same breath, and turn the other cheek and

decide that it is good business, because he deems so, to borrow

money from undisclosed foreign sources, including the Arab

nations, to finance the expansion of Hydro and other people

services in the Province of British Columbia. What makes it so

unacceptable is the fact that for years we were able to do this

without ever going outside of the boundaries of B.C.

We must ask the question of what happened to the capital funds available to

us in the pension accounts and in all the trust funds administered by the Minister

of Finance of the province. Where are they at? How are they being used? Is it

an advantage to the people of the Province of British Columbia, or in the long

run will it turn out to be a millstone around our necks and, instead of guaranteeing

in perpetuity the pensions of civil servants and other people within the employ

of the province, who are a long way from retirement, have them face the same

proposition that the teachers in the Province of British Columbia faced many

years ago? Is this one of the side effects of deciding to borrow money outside

of the confines of the Province of British Columbia? It might be acceptable

if the funds that were available were used to good purpose, but who's to guarantee

that? As a matter of fact, as we look at the sorry record before us, there's

no indication that those funds were used in a manner which would be profitable

to the people of British Columbia who, after all, have a right to demand of

the government an accounting for funds that are in their trust.

Yes, we've heard many comments by the now Premier of this

province about financial accountability, about fiscal

responsibility. But not only in this bill but in the means

which he has chosen in the last year to finance capital

requirements of the Province of British Columbia, he's pointed

out, I think, to all the people of this province that he only

paid lip service to his previous comments of a year and two

years ago, that now we are in the hands of the moneychangers

and that we are in the hands of foreign control. The money we

require now, which would have been available had the Minister

chosen a prudent course to follow in the investment of funds

available through pension plans and other forms of investment,

would have provided the capital that is now needed to complete

what will be and prove to be the cheapest power generated in

any location in the North American continent at this time. So

it's unfortunate that we have to not only increase the

borrowing power but look at a bill which will allow that money

to be borrowed from whatever source the Minister chooses to

use.

In that respect, it would seem that we require, more than

anything else at this particular time, a provision enshrined in

our statutes which requires the Minister of Finance to provide

accountability to the people of this province on a regular

basis. We need it now more than we have ever required it

before, because at the present time we do not have that

accountability, an accountability that should be open to the

full disclosure before the public — not to a selected few

people but to everyone who has an equity in the Province of

British Columbia, and that means everyone who is a citizen of

this province who pays taxes in this province. There should be

no differentiation between one class of citizen and other.

They're all here; they all pay taxes. They're all entitled to

know and receive a full disclosure of the accounting practices

followed by the Minister of Finance, and particularly the

sources from which he derives the capital funds that will be

needed for the expansion of our economy.

MR. G. B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Just a couple of

quick words, because this has been discussed during second

reading. I think the opposition attitude to this request for an

additional $750 million in three lines — $250 million a line —

[ Page 2469 ]

boils down, once again, to the question of accountability.

Mr. Premier, the accountability of your government is certainly

not improved over the accountability of the former

administration. I think until such time as you appreciate the

fact, in this province, that we have to have accountability or

a watchdog that is independent of government, we are going to

continue to have difficulties.

We have found these difficulties that are spinning out of

B.C. Railway. Surely to goodness, if we happened to have an

independent auditor-general in the Province of British

Columbia, we would have a body, a force, that could get into

these problems and find out something about them long before

they became crises. It seems that in British Columbia we are

always moving from sort of a position of platitude to one of

crisis. This could easily be completely circumvented by the

institution of an auditor-general in the Province of British

Columbia to see that the public receives value. He would be an

independent check and balance, someone who would be independent

of government and whose job and sole responsibility would be to

blow the whistle on unauthorized expenditures — to blow the

whistle when, in his judgment, he determined that the general

public was not receiving value. We don't have that mechanism

yet in the Province of British Columbia, and until such time as

we do, we are going to continue to have difficulty, whatever

the administration may be. I have advocated this ever since

I've been a Member of this House. I have been railed against by

one administration after another for suggesting it.

People are always talking about horses on the payroll. Well,

I am delighted that someone was able to find that there was a

horse on the payroll, because that individual is doing a job

for the general public. I think this is probably one of the

greatest criticisms the people of our province have today: they

question whether or not they are receiving value. From a bill

such as this with the explanation given, there is absolutely no

way that one can determine if there will be value contemplated

or value received. Within this we don't have any projections.

We don't have any estimates. We don't have any indications of

the precise need of an amount of money and, most important of

all — or as a corollary at least, if not most important of all — we don't have an effective check and balance to ineffective

expenditures and the public not receiving effective and true

value for their tax dollar.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I could, perhaps, best deal

with it all at once or deal with the two subjects I have

now.

First of all, I have to obviously dismiss out of hand the comments of the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) about making information public. He made the

statement, which is totally incorrect, that the interest rates are not known

on the Arab borrowings. They are. Everything is public, Mr. Member. Perhaps

it was an oversight of your research rather than by intent. But everything is

a matter of public record on these borrowings, except the country of origin.

But everything else is. I am glad that you acknowledge that, Mr. Member, because

you were leaving the impression with the House.... If you will check the Blues,

it was probably an oversight on your part. But you did say that the interest

rates were secret, the conditions were secret — and that's simply not so. It's

not true. The interest rates are known and the length of loans are known, as

a matter of public record.

In terms of internal borrowing yes, Mr. Member, there is a

prospect of doing major internal borrowings and continuing. But

we have the pressure of the Columbia River treaty, which has

been a matter of great debate, and it's a matter of record.

It's not a matter that we brought upon ourselves, but no

government, whether it was us or anyone else, could turn off

the deal once it was signed. We have treaty obligations and we

have to pay for those treaty obligations.

The third matter you raised was about internal financing. I

can recall, as the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) can recall...and one of the reasons why he will never

join the Social Credit party is because the Social Credit

method of financing was to starve the schools and hospitals.

Some of the most eloquent speeches made in this House against

that policy were made by the First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey. That is one of the many reasons why he would never join

Social Credit, because he made the most eloquent pleas of all —

of any Member of this House — against the policy of starving

the schools and starving the hospitals for the Columbia River

fiasco. That Member, while he ponders his independence, knows

very well that any government that succeeded the Social Credit

mess on the Columbia would have to pay the bill. That's what

we're doing. So I commend that Member for his excellent

analysis of the mess the Socreds got us into. I commend him for

his analysis, his impassioned speeches that brought applause

not only from the House but also from the galleries and the

people of this province when he opposed the Social Credit

policy of starving the schools, starving the hospitals.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you are an independent Member, too,

Mr. Member, and if you're leaning more to the Socreds that his

impassioned speeches would allow you to, I just want to remind

you of who created this mess. While the Liberal

[ Page 2470 ]

leader smiles and thinks it's uncomfortable for those two

independents to hear this, this is a very grave matter. And

even if they are uncomfortable, Mr. Member, they are stuck with

sitting on the fence there.

They know what the policy was — starving the schools,

starving the hospitals. Four times. Just to remind you while

you're both there — when you ponder the decision of moving over

to Social Credit — just remember the legacy of terrible

management you will be taking with you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right. Now, to your point, Mr. Member. You

are absolutely right in terms of some method of public

accountability. Correct. Two things we did immediately, which

somehow in opposition you find necessary to neglect.... I

don't think you do it for political purposes; I think it is

short memory.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. I'm glad you acknowledge

that because you would be the first when I recall it to remind

the House that we now have Hydro appearing before public

accounts, with the chairman of public accounts being that

wonderful Member for the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), who is now a

part of the official opposition, but soon to be independent,

because when the independents move in, he's got to move out.

Somebody's got to make room up the pecking order. But while he

is still there, he is chairman of public accounts, and we have

had B.C. Hydro in front of public accounts. To hear the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) — who has, by reason of

embarrassment alone, left the House, not more than anything

else — suggest that there is no accountability when Social

Credit never allowed anything to go to public accounts

committee is sheer politics, political politics, partisan

political politics.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The worst kind of

politics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The worst kind of politics. You would

know, Mr. Member, because you are now an independent, and you

would never play politics as an independent. But for those who

have labels to sit in this House and say that there is no

accountability is nonsense.

Now, Mr. Member, the second thing we did.... And you are quite right, the

history of us getting at any of these things was zero. I don't want to ruin

your political career completely, but you are quite right. We asked the comptroller-general

to go in and check the books of B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro. He came in with

a very good report on Hydro, not so good on B.C. Rail.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Order, Mr. Chairman!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life, call order on that one!

I can understand why. Just pull your tie up a little bit tight

and fasten your seat belt, partner; your government is

responsible for situations we found. You are absolutely right,

Mr. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, we had to go in, so we use

the government agency of the comptroller-general. That report

was filed in this House. I know you forgot to mention that

because it slipped your mind, but it was never done before —

two things: public accounts and the comptroller-general. Have

you read the comptroller-general's report on B.C. Hydro?

AN HON. MEMBER: I read it before you did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You did, eh? How could you read it before

I did? I filed it in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't here. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: So, Mr. Member, I know it is embarrassing

for you to have to sit so close to that group.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Balderdash!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life your colleague's speech

was balderdash when he gets up in this House and says that

we've got to have more accountability. They never let public

accounts in; they never let the comptroller-general in. As a

matter of fact, one of the statements made by the

comptroller-general was that he was never allowed full access

of those books under the Social Credit government.

MR. GARDOM: Why didn't he tell the public?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, here is the point; here is the proof

of the pudding! The Member asks: "Why didn't he tell the

public?" Well, under whose administration did he tell the

public? Our administration. How do you think it came out

publicly? For a lawyer, you've been hoisted. Why do we lowly

social workers have to straighten out these lawyers all the

time?

MR. McGEER: What about the auditor-general?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, the auditor-general!

[ Page 2471 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shh! Independents, don't speak, because if

you are trying to rationalize your way to Social Credit, and

you start calling for an auditor-general, then you are joining

the wrong party.

MR. McGEER: What about the auditor-general?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr., Member, don't dig a hole any

deeper than you have to.

MR. McGEER: What about the auditor-general?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about him? What did the federal

Liberals try to do to old Max? Tell us, what are you trying to

do with old Max? (Laughter.)

Anyway, aside from old Max, how in the world did the

statement become public that the comptroller-general said that

he was never allowed to look at the B.C. Rail books? Because we

ordered him to go in there and make a public report. We ordered

him to go in and make the public report, and he said that he

was never asked or allowed to do that before. Mr. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, be fair. As you consider your own future,

look to the past and be fair. No other government allowed this

to take place in British Columbia before. Even Liberal

administrations, so help me goodness, when they were in power

in this province never allowed this to take place before.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now the comptroller-general has said a lot

of things about empty spaces in the Liberal Party. He can't

help that. You've got your own problems.

Now we have driven out the two independents — they are going

out to caucus to consider their political future after they've

heard what has happened with Social Credit. That's what they're

out for. There's no way those two could join Social Credit, but

I have to remind them anyway.

So now the next matter is what we're stuck with in terms of

paying for. We have tremendous hydro needs in this province. We

are committed to the Columbia River treaty completion, we have

Site 1, and we have the Pend-d'Oreille.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many dollars each? I anticipate that

the total amount will be close to the maximum allowable in

terms of the additional borrowing power in this bill. We're

hopeful that that's the figure.

The internal financing, of course...the first call on internal financing

will be schools, hospitals, the colleges and other services. The only two borrowings

that not complete information is known on is the name of the country that we

borrowed $200 million from. All the details of that loan are available.

Now the last subject, of course, is the public information

raised by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). We

filed a prospectus in New York, Mr. Member, and I will see that

a copy is available to you if you wish one. All you have to do

is drop a note to the Finance department and they will make

available copies of the prospectus because it's a public

document required by the SEC.

So that's really where it's at. We've inherited an

obligation on hydro development that we would have to go ahead

with, whether it was us or anyone else. The decision on Site 1

was our decision, although most of the engineering work had

been done prior to us coming into office. Site 1 commends

itself because it's a maximization of a river that's already

been damaged.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Pretty costly power.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Peace River is pretty costly power,

but that was a commitment we had from the former

administration, and we have to maximize what we're faced with.

Look, if we had our druthers, we'd rather you had not gone the

route you did. But it doesn't matter what party's in power, you

have to make the decisions that are obvious.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we can go through those old debates

over and over again. If I had the ability to scrub out your

terrible mistakes, I would do it. But once faced with the hard

information that we had in 1972, the obvious option was to go

for Site 1 — the obvious option.

Now the matter of alternate power. The government has moved

to cover all the geothermal sites under public ownership. The

government has in front of it the concerns expressed by many

people in the power field about shifting to energy produced by

the use of coal. The government has taken a position opposed to

the development of nuclear power stations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you revising that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're not revising that decision. That is

our position. I would commend you to read some of the comments

I made shortly after coming into office and how there was

chuckling in the newspapers about some of my statements, only

to find that my statements about the forthcoming

[ Page 2472 ]

energy crisis were a warning about a year before anyone else

picked up on it. But it's not, I have to confess, because I

have any great talent or ability. I just made myself available

of the Rand Commission's report for California and its power

projections in that state, and they are applicable in a smaller

scale for us here in British Columbia. While the newspapers

with their thorough, researching reporters knew what I was

talking about, the editorial pages didn't. The working press

knew that I was correct, but their reports were suppressed by

the owners...

AN HON. MEMBER: No way, no way!

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...who would not keep their eyes open to

the information that was....

MR. GARDOM: Lackey press.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are not the lackey press. They are

just the poor minions of the press. Nonetheless, the Rand

report was a frightening document.

MR. GARDOM: Let's hear it for Snifkins!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Snifkins? (Laughter.) That's a new

political party.

The Rand report indicated the tremendous pressure there

would be on power needs on the California coast. They projected

that by the year 2000 there would be a need of a nuclear power

plant every eight miles along the California coast, if the

projected growth continued.

We cannot consider that alternative in this province. Given

the question marks about the safety of nuclear power and the

question never discussed publicly — and let me be the first to

remind you; it won't be an earth-shaking headline or anything

else — but the one subject about nuclear power that is not

discussed publicly, aside from the safety, aside from the

technical problems of the engineering, is availability of

supply of radioactive materials. I want to tell you something:

the technical systems of CANDU are probably among the best in

the world, but the problem that is not discussed — and I

suspect the real reason why the slowdown in the United States —

is not so much (

a) the pollution problem, (

b) the technological

problems, but (

c) the question of supply.

How many years' supply are there available to North

Americans for the development of nuclear plants? Who controls

that supply?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hundreds of years? You may be surprised, Mr. Member,

to find out that that myth is the same kind of myth that let us believe 10 years

ago that we had unlimited oil supply in this country.

MR. G. F. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): Would you stake

your seat on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that I

recall how the oil companies told your federal government, of

which you were a part, that there was an unlimited supply of

oil and natural gas in Canada. Tens and tens and tens of years;

that's the guff that was pedalled by the federal Liberal

government that led to our export policy.

Who paid attention to the NDP? The oil companies sold the

federal government on the policy. Now we don't have any

national energy policy; to this day we don't have any energy

policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we still do not have a

definitive national energy policy out of the federal

government. They have suffered in their direction with the loss

of all that expertise and confidence from the former Member for

Esquimalt Saanich (Mr. D.A. Anderson), who knew the answer to

every question there was. How the federal Liberal caucus has

lost because of his absence! His technical skills, his

expertise and his knowledge were a great help to the former

Prime Minister; that's why they urged him to come to B.C.

(Laughter.)

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, there is a very serious question

about the availability.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to tell you, Mr. Member.... You're

surprised to hear that. I will make available to you some....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no, no, no. I'm always about a

year ahead of time. I'll make some reading available to you,

Mr. Member; don't get too anxious. With a 57-vote majority, you

want to read a little bit. (Laughter.) I'll make some

information — shhhhh!

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll have a run-off.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No run-offs for you, partner! A skin-deep

victory is all you can hope for. You don't go around looking

for run-offs.

Look, I'll make available to you some current readings to

you that I find quite....

[ Page 2473 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The CANDU system in terms of technology is

not a question of supply, Mr. Member. There is a great deal of

difference, but of course I can't impress that upon you because

you know everything there is to know. But I want to suggest to

you Mr. Member, that there is a growing concern about the

evaluation of the consistency of supply. I think that there is

reason for us to be very, very concerned about the information

we've been fed and the gap between that and the facts. I'll

make some reading available to you and also some other

information that's come to our attention that makes us very

concerned. I'd be happy to chat with you about it.

So that's the point. We've made the commitment to the hydro

development; we'll maximize those rivers that are already

damaged: the Columbia system, the Peace River and the

extensions of that.

The choices to be made within a few years have to relate to

the use of coal. The late Dal Grauer wanted the B.C. Electric

Co. to go ahead with the Hat Creek coal deposits. As a matter

of fact, that decision lead to the political seizure of the B.C. Electric. I choose the word carefully about seizure, because

at this current time in the atmosphere of politics in British

Columbia one has to go back to the only government that seized

property in the history of this province. They seized the Black

Ball Ferries — that was under Social Credit; they seized B.C.

Electric — that was under Social Credit. I just want to remind

those great freedom fighters how they seized property after

having told the public a different story.

As a matter of fact, as I recall it, in relating to Hydro....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, I'm talking answers to Hydro

policy. You wanted this debate in here. I'm saying that in

1960, during that election when great Hydro issues were being

debated and the course of these funds at that time were being

set, we were told that at no time would there be public

ownership of the B.C. Electric if you voted Social Credit.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you how it relates. The decision was made

at that time not to go ahead with Dal Grauer's plan of development of the Hat

Creek coal; the decision was made to go for the political expediency of the

Columbia River deal and the two-river policy of the Peace River as well. That's

what relates to this bill; that's what the people of this province have to pay

off. Nine months after that election, the B.C. Electric was seized, taken over,

expropriated, nationalized, Social Creditized, thumped over the head. The day

freedom died in British Columbia!

I know they'll all resign now and say they regret having

made wild statements about our government, considering the

record that this government had to take over from them. We've

got to pay for the Columbia, which was purely a political

decision over there.

MR. SMITH: No wonder you're going down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look, Mr. Member, we have to pay for the

Columbia — somebody has got to pay for it. The people of this

province are burdened with the Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You say that with every bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if you find some other way we can

pay the bills, let me know. I'll be happy to find out how we

are going to pay off the mess we inherited.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, you are going to put your finger in

the dike — that's what you're going to do.

So along with that, Mr. Member, we haven't reached the

auditor-general

section yet, but we do have the problem of

raising the funds. We do have the public accounts committee

available, where the B.C. Hydro director will be available. Mr.

Chairman, I know it's painful for them, but they want to be

answered, so I'm giving them the answers.

So that's where it stands, Mr. Member, and it is a matter of

record that the comptroller-general did go in, and his report

was filed for the benefit of this House. There were no holds

barred on him by this government, none whatsoever.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it's the next best thing to it, Mr.

Member. We can't give you perfection, but we can give you

almost nirvana, not quite.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the rules of relevancy have been

given quite an expansion in context this afternoon, which no

opposition Member will disagree with for one minute. I think it

is a wonderful thing that we are having such a wide-ranging

debate on this bill.

It's a very short bill, and here we are at committee stage,

being asked in three lines to authorize, on behalf of the

public of British Columbia, an extra

[ Page 2474 ]

three-quarters of a billion dollars for the B.C. Hydro and

Power Authority.

My question to the Premier is very simple: what is the money

going to be used for, over how long a period and exactly how

much on each project? I just assumed that the Premier was going

to come in here with charts, diagrams and figures — all this

kind of thing which would tell us exactly what this

three-quarters of a billion dollars of the public's money was

to be used for.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Public accounts will do that.

MR. GIBSON: It's not there. "Public accounts will do it," he says. After the fact it will do it, Mr. Chairman.

Can you imagine the gall of that? Here we are being asked to

vote money, and we are asking in advance what the money is for.

After it's blown out of the barn, what good does it do us then?

What good does that do the people of British Columbia then?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Weeks ago you could have had it.

MR. GIBSON: Do you know what reference the Premier gave us,

Mr. Chairman? A public document required by the Securities and

Exchange Commission in the United States of America, not

anything revealed under the laws of British Columbia, and not

tailored to the kinds of things needed in this bill.

I ask the Premier to stand up and tell us these exact

things: over how long a period will this money be spent? How

much will be spent on the Columbia, Site 1, the Pend-d'Oreille?

How much will be external funding and how much will be

internally generated by B.C. Hydro? Very simple questions

there.

Now I will just touch for a second on the nuclear supply

question, Mr. Chairman, because the Premier said there was a

genuine supply concern arising in Canada.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the world.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about Canada. We live in Canada, Mr.

Premier. I guess the Premier didn't hear me, but I stood up and

I said: "Will you stake your seat on that?" He didn't answer

that. I was surprised, because he seemed quite sure of what he

was talking about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Supply in the world.

MR. GIBSON: But how about the supply in Canada? It is Canada

where we live, Mr. Premier, and it's Canada that controls the

supplies of uranium and thorium which are in the Canadian

context.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But we have no overseas obligations?

MR. GIBSON: We have some overseas obligations, but they are

very slight. They are very slight, so far.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Aha, so far!

MR. GIBSON: As a matter of fact, do you know what the

president of Atomic Energy of Canada said the other day in

Halifax? I was so struck by this that I wrote him a letter and

asked, "Can this really be true?" He wrote me back a copy of

his speech saying: "Yes, this is really true." What he said,

basically, was that there is a thousand years' supply of

uranium in Canada for every Canadian using three times as much

energy as they use now.

Now if that is a supply problem, Mr. Chairman, I have to be

puzzled by this Premier of ours. But as I say, that is

essentially a red herring; he's got his mind made up about

nuclear power anyway.

Now I want to ask the Premier whether any of this money will

be used for Hat Creek coal development, and when that project

is going to come on. He's talking very vaguely about it. When

is it going to come on?

I want to ask the Premier what the load forecasts are for

British Columbia Hydro, because naturally that is what

determines what money is going to be required. The issue of

Progress , which is a B.C. Hydro publication, edition of summer,

1974, gives this quote: "The usage of electricity of B.C. Hydro

customers rose by 10.7 per cent over the previous year."

Another quote here: "In the gas service, usage rose 9.6 per

cent to 711 million therms."

I would like to know what the Premier's forecasts are. Is he

going by the B.C. Energy Commission forecast, or is he going by

the B.C. Hydro forecast, because the energy commission

forecasts are substantially lower and make a great deal of

difference in the amount of capital required. Which one,

specifically, is the one that is being used here?

Now in terms of the internal generation of funds in British

Columbia Hydro, I want to ask the Premier whether those

internally generated funds are predicated on the assumption of

a rise in the price of the natural gas rate to domestic and/or

industrial consumers. If it is not predicated on that, how does he square that

with the energy conservation ethic and the need to price energy

supplies at their real economic value, taking that into the

income stream of the province and compensating back, if

necessary, those people who can't afford that increase?

I want to ask him if the fund generation capabilities of

Hydro assume some kind of rise in the domestic price of natural

gas.

As I say, we're more or less groping in the dark.

[ Page 2475 ]

We haven't been given the fundamental data base we need to

ask the proper questions, but perhaps I'll be back if the

Premier provides some answers to those.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, when one deals

with these very substantial figures, I can tell the Minister of

Finance and the House that the man on the street, the citizen

in British Columbia, is boggling more and more at the financial

affairs of the present administration. As I've said on previous

debates in this House, if there is one issue, rightly or

wrongly, which is likely to bring this government down — I say

this very sincerely in a non-partisan way — if you listen to

what the people of British Columbia are saying today, if there

is one issue that scares them out of their skins, it's the

apparent rapid escalation of the very large sums of money which

this government is either seeking to borrow or is spending out

of reputed surplus.

For example, in trying to be cooperative from our side of

the House on one of the difficult issues we're faced with on

estimates, I get angry telegrams from individual citizens in

this province, misinformed as they are, that the Liberals and

Conservatives have made some kind of a deal with the NDP to go

behind closed doors to finish debate on estimates. That's how

absolutely wrong people can be in trying to understand what's

going on in this chamber and this Legislature. On this

particular issue of the estimates, the person sending me the

telegram is completely uninformed and, worse than that, when I

phone him he doesn't have the courtesy to apologize when I tell

him that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Nevertheless, the one big issue — the big issue — and it

applies to any government in power, is its handling of the

money. Everywhere you go in this province, citizens, many of

them with a knowledge confined only to superficial data and

block figures, wonder how on earth the government can manage to

spend as much money and be seeking to borrow so much money.

On this particular bill...and I've listened with interest to some of the

projects which the Premier tells us the government more or less has to be committed

to, projects which have been started and have to be finished, and the history

of governments is that they very often have to make certain decisions about

which they have little choice. In this particular instance, they're asking for

borrowing power of another $750 million, in conjunction with this government's

statement that they're so concerned about the mess in connection with the Columbia

River treaty that we must have an inquiry. When that statement is made so bald

and unequivocal, and it was made several weeks ago, I must say that I find it

very difficult to readily buy the Minister of Finance's argument that this money

will all be spent in the manner he suggests, when in fact it might be easier

for the opposition to understand this bill if it could be

debated after we have the inquiry on the financing of the

Columbia River project. It seems to me we're putting the cart

before the horse, when we've already been told by this

government that....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: But the fact is, while the projects in large

measure will have to go ahead, the Premier has stated many

times that the reason for such large sums of money being

required is the financial mess which was negotiated by the

former administration. I think the Minister would have to

acknowledge that if we're being responsible as opposition

Members, I would like to know how much of this $750 million

that will have to be borrowed is to catch up or correct or to

neutralize the amounts of money which are required in excess of

those budgeted for in the original Columbia River treaty

project.

We've heard all kinds of ballpark figures bandied around in

the past several weeks, inside and outside of this House. The

opposition could be much more intelligent and better informed

in this debate on this bill if we had some information, even at

this late stage, from the Minister of Finance as to how much of

this $750 million will be used to meet the unexpected or

uncalculated costs on the Columbia River treaty project which

the Premier says is the source and centre of most of his

financial problems with Hydro.

It's quite clear, from statements also made by the Hon.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams), that he also considers that the financial

arrangements were ill-considered or badly arranged and in all

respects a disaster, in his opinion, for British Columbia. And

he is a member of Hydro.

We would have to ask the question: in asking for this kind

of borrowing power, are we not putting the cart before the

horse? Would it not be reasonable to take the position that if

we have the whole story we might be able to decide to what

degree this kind of money is justified in being authorized by

the House?

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, regardless of this specific

bill, I would speak in favour of the principle of an

auditor-general who reports to the House, who does not report

to a Minister or report anywhere other than directly to the

House and hence to the people of the province. And that's

regardless of what government is in power. It seems to me that

the role of the auditor-general at the federal level.... Not

that the government pays much attention to him, mind you; all

they do is scream and holler because he reveals their

weaknesses, and they purposely keep his staff to a minimum so

that he can't keep up with the work he's expected to do. So I

would add the proviso that there is no point in creating an

auditor-general unless you give him the kind of authority which

is necessary and the terms of reference to report

[ Page 2476 ]

directly to the House and an adequate number of staff to do

the job you are asking him to do.

So, in passing, I would support the comments very strongly

of the Liberal Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

that an auditor-general is a very important safeguard and a

very useful mechanism for the people of the province in being

able to know precisely what financial performance the

government of the day is giving on behalf of the people.

Regardless of the auditor-general aspect, this is a pretty

large sum of money we are being asked to agree to for the

increased borrowing capacity. I feel that we need some more

specific detail than the Premier has given us, and I would like

him to answer my questions regarding the inquiry.

Would it not make a lot of sense if we had some of the kind

of information which will come out of the proposed inquiry?

When are we going to get it? What will the terms of reference

be? To what degree will individuals in society or groups or

politicians in the opposition have the opportunity to take

part

in the hearings; and there are a whole host of other questions

in relation to the inquiry.

Over and above that, could the Premier give us a breakdown

on the extra $750 million and for what specific projects this

money will be used? And as the Member for North

Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked, over what period of time

are we being asked to agree to the borrowing of this kind of

money?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am glad to see that the Premier is back in