1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2669 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates

On vote

23. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2669

On vote 24. Mr. Smith — 2670

On vote 25. Mr. Phillips — 2672

On vote 26. Mr. Wallace — 2676

On vote 28. Mr. Smith — 2683

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed, I have had a

request I felt I should pass on for your consideration and

judgment, and that is that B.C. Television wanted to do a

question period. They suggested tomorrow.

I feel that in view of the remarks that have been made on

various sides of the House on the whole question in the light

of Dr. McWhinney's report on the subject of parliamentary

immunity and broadcasting, before any such consent is given the

House should be consulted and the House should decide. So I

raise the matter now and will ask you at 2 o'clock what your

considered opinion on that is. I won't ask you until there are

more Members in the House, of course.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A point of information, Mr.

Speaker. My memory is failing on this point, but I understand

that we did set up some sort of committee on the access of

television cameras to the floor of the House. Is it your

intention to reconvene this committee?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but the technical committee that has been

looking at the subject has been waiting patiently, I hope, for

proper equipment that would allow lower light levels that would

be more acceptable to Members. There is no sense rushing into

long use of high lighting before it is endurable, and they

advise me that there is considerable improvement taking place

at the present time in the kind of equipment that makes it

possible to have lower light levels. They have been holding us

up, in a sense.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand that and

I would not like it to be suggested that this Legislature could

not stand the bright lights of public scrutiny.

Are we going to reconvene the committee of Members of the

House which was looking into it? If my memory serves me

correctly, I was a member of that committee and it is a long

time ago that anybody invited me to a meeting. Are we calling

it back together?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I could certainly do so, or I could suggest that

the House take some initiative of its own. But at the moment, as I said, it

was not practical to convene the committee merely to find out the fact that

the technical achievements of science has not caught up with this chamber. Although

it is done in other chambers it is only done for a limited period. I don't think

the Members could stand more than about 15 minutes of those lights. They would

start complaining to me and I would hate to see the whole idea lost because

of premature exposure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: However I will ask you at 2 o'clock what your

considered judgment on the matter is, and if there is any

dissent on the subject because of the present rules on

parliamentary immunity and the need for change in legislation,

then we will decide the matter at 2 p.m.

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

matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Before you leave the chair I

must say on behalf of the independent Members that when we

voted for the election of Mrs. Miller to her present position

we knew that she would bring charm and skill to the Clerks'

table. I must say that we all appreciate the radiance which she

also brings. It's a change from the glaring reflection which we

have been accustomed to in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, actually the whole idea was to bring more

decorum to the chamber.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 23: corporate and financial services division,

$3,050,840 — continued.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I presume that the changes in personnel

in the public trustee's office are simply changes in the names

of the various civil servants doing certain jobs. For example,

solicitor 4, solicitor 3 and new legal officers 2 and legal

officers 1 appear. Is that just a shifting of names, a

straightening out of standardization of names of particular

jobs?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): It's just

classifications.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I notice there is some money now put

aside for advertising under this vote. Is there any specific

purpose for it, or any lack that you have had before? The

opposition is naturally sensitive on advertising when the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

takes virtually full-page ads to advertise that he has

got rid of the fleas on the new ferry he had purchased. We

wonder about advertising under

[ Page 2670 ]

corporate and financial services.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are two areas of possible

advertising. One is the securities commission so that their

services are known to be available, and the other is in the

area of the inspector of credit unions, because again we want

to make the services available and the support that that office

can give to the formation of new credit unions known to the

people. We are ready to go out and help them when they want to

form a credit union.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Under the securities commission office I

notice a substantial increase in staff which is probably very

necessary. May I ask the Minister whether this is directly

related to the type of investigations he's been carrying out,

such as, for example, the shares of Cornat Industries which he

is requested to look at, and is this because of a greater

workload coming up naturally, or is it because of a change in

policy emphasis of the Minister that he is going to straighten

out a body in B.C. which is being severely criticized by many

Ministers of the government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Subject to the resources of government

and the taxpayers' dollar, I have tried to build up the

personnel in the securities office. We've made substantial

changes in the last couple of years. Some of these positions I

don't think we've been able to fill yet. It isn't a Treasury

problem, it's a problem of finding qualified people

— sometimes a lawyer, sometimes a chartered accountant or

a qualified accountant. When we do have investigations that are

suggested in this Legislature, I'm glad to do them. But in the

Cornat case, 300 man-hours of work; the Can-Cel

thing, a very big thing. This is something the public is

entitled to, but when they're taken out of their regular duties

for that kind of thing, the load is very substantial. We intend

to continue to improve the quality and the numbers there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just to finish up on that point —

the Minister, who sometimes has been very critical of the

Vancouver Stock Exchange, was getting to his feet to switch to

another vote — could you indicate to me, Mr.

Attorney-General, whether or not there's going to be any

major change of emphasis in this area, such as, for example,

the co-ordinated law enforcement area in another branch

of your particular department? Are you setting up new

structures, new task forces to straighten out problem areas in

the stock exchange or in a general area of securities? I would

like to know if you are. Or are we simply meeting the problems

as they come up, meeting the requests for investigation as they

come up?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there are two areas that

we're now working on. Under CLEU, as of about a month

ago, we authorized the study where they should look

particularly at what you might call commercial fraud. That

includes the puffing and the washing of stock, the manipulation

of the stock market. The second thing I'd mention is that, in

co-operation with the Vancouver Stock Exchange, we're

going through their rules and regulations. The new Securities

Act, of course, gives us the final approval of rules and

regulations of the stock exchange.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, there are just two

items right at the end there under 005, fees and allowances,

which is up by seven times, and 045 — fees for services,

$10,000. That's a new item and I wonder if the Minister can

tell us what these services are and why the fees and allowances

are up by sevenfold.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In answer to the first question —

and I'd like you to keep your voice down because the Minister

of Finance is listening to these exchanges (laughter) —

the first vote, the $17,000, is a small sum, but it's part of

the allowances paid to the corporate and financial services

commission which is our appellate body that is increasingly

taking on work — appeals in stock exchange cases, company

cases, even credit union cases now. The $10,000 is part of the

petty cash of the credit union office there.

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

just like to ask the Attorney-General if he's one of the

ones cutting down his vote by 10 per cent, as revealed by the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

Are you cutting all of these votes down by 10 per cent?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We use negative arithmetic in our

department.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I wanted to ask the Minister

if the honorary member of the CLEU has used his badge yet? I

wanted to ask the Minister if the honorary member of CLEU, who

sits down here in the front row on the left, has used his badge

yet?

Interjections.

Vote 23 approved.

On Vote 24: land registry offices, $3,607,158.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I'd like

to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General a

problem which he may be remotely familiar with. One that, I

think, was

[ Page 2671 ]

brought to his attention by one Mrs. Norma Howell of Hatzic,

British Columbia, and it has to do with the subdivision of

property on Hatzic Lake. I'd just like to review what has

happened.

Apparently the original owners of the property, a Mr. and

Mrs. Record, had a number of acres which they planned to

subdivide. They wanted to create 18 or 20 separate parcels of

land to sell as home sites to individuals. They were not able

to accomplish this. Perhaps it was due to the land freeze or

the rules and regulations of the regional district in which

they are involved. What they did was issue 99-year leases

to each of the people involved who wanted to purchase the 20

parcels of land. So each of the individuals involved —

and there were 20 people — took possession of 20

different parcels of property; they became recipients of the

property and lease on a 99-year basis.

In the time since Mrs. Howell took possession of her

property in 1971 to the present, the original owners, Mr. and

Mrs. Record, became involved in financial problems. They are

indebted to Canada Permanent Trust to a substantial extent, so

much so that Canada Permanent Trust commenced a foreclosure

proceeding against the total parcel of property which was still

registered as one parcel.

About the same time, one of the couples who had purchased a

lot — or at least taken a 99-year lease on a parcel

of property — also started an action and filed a lis

pendens against the property on their own behalf.

Subsequent to this they had a discussion with Canada Permanent

Trust and took over the liability I which the original owners,

Mr. and Mrs. Record, had against the property in favour of

Canada Permanent Trust. It now seems that Mr. and Mrs.

Croysdale are the owners of the property with 19 other tenants

living there with leases which were originally executed between

the original owners, Mr. and Mrs. Record, and themselves.

The Present situation is that the present owners, Mr. and

Mrs. Croysdale, have started actions against the 18 tenants on

the property to have them removed. They are starting with this

one particular t situation where Mrs. Norma Howell is involved.

They have started an action against her first with the

intention of continuing actions against the other 18 couples

who are involved.

I realize that it is a difficult situation. The original owner gave what might

be considered a sort of quasi-title in issuing 99-year leases to persons

who they, in good faith, sold parcels of land to. Then along came the trust

company that the original owners, Mr. and Mrs. Record, were deeply involved

with financially. The trust company was about to foreclose and at that point

Mr. and Mrs. Croysdale, I suppose on legal advice, decided to protect themselves

and be the first of the tenants involved in the property to do something. They

took what was a legal step to ensure themselves protection.

The other people who are involved have paid substantial sums

of money to the original owners for these leases and now find

themselves in the situation where they could be evicted at any

time by the new owners of the property.

I believe that this was brought to the attention of the

Attorney-General; at least, my correspondence indicates

that it was. It is one of those peculiar situations in which we

occasionally have to become involved because there is no other

course of appeal for a person like this. This lady with her son

wants very much to retain the property and the home that they

have there.

Is there some means of recourse, not only for Mrs. Howell

who is involved at the present time but presumably also the

other 18 people who will be as much involved as she is?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this kind of problem crops

up, not only in the sale of 99-year leases on a large

tract of land but in the case of just sale of lots. Without

proper information to the purchasers of lots or the

99-year leases, there can be a main first mortgage

against the whole tract of land. Then somebody who pays off

their lot can't get a discharge for their lot until the last

person has paid off the last part of that big first mortgage.

In this case you are referring to an instance where presumably

the first mortgage was foreclosed, thereby perhaps, depending

on what the court order was, rendering the eases null and void

and wiping out the equity that the people who purchased the

leases had.

We changed things in this Legislature about a year ago, but

I doubt if it affected this case. I can't give you the exact

time, but we are requiring a prospectus. When you have a tract

of land and you are going to sell leases on it, you have got to

have a prospectus to give full information to the purchasers.

This will help.

We will look at our records of the case, but basically I

would think it is a matter where Mrs. Howell must take legal

advice. But, in addition to hat, I'll be glad to look at

it.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I might just make one further

point. Could we expect some immediate action in the matter? I

talked to Mrs. Howell as late as about an hour ago and she

informs me that at the present time they have received a notice

from the sheriff's office that they will be evicted forthwith.

Apparently it has proceeded that far that the people are in...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but this is a court action.

MR. SMITH: ...the process of eviction at the present time.

It has been suggested that in order for

[ Page 2672 ]

each of these individuals to protect himself and retain

ownership of the property, perhaps they could form a company of

some sort and they could then register their proper leases. Is

there anything that could be done in that respect so that they

would become shareholders?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Member, we'll look at it. Forming a

company wouldn't make any difference if they've lost their

equity by reason of some court action of foreclosure on the

first mortgage. Forming a company wouldn't help. But I will

look at it.

But at the same time, with this caveat, if there has been a

court proceeding by the first mortgagee against that property,

I can't step in even with the awesome powers that we have in

this department (laughter) and effect a court decision. But I

will see that it's looked at in the next day or two in case

there's something that we should do in counter distinction to

what somebody should do in asking the court for protection.

MR. SMITH: I think that the people realize, including those

other people who are involved, that what they really entered

into was a type of agreement which could not be registered at

the immediate time. It was probably questionable legally, but

unfortunately they do have a real problem that they've involved

themselves in.

The foreclosure did take place and the title of the total

property now lies in the name, I understand, of a Mr. and Mrs.

Croysdale.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General about land registry procedures in

general. We've discussed in the House on earlier occasions the

need to use modern hardware and technology and get into the

20th century as fast as we can. We've talked about the great

difficulties that many people encounter — losing time

from work, having to travel a distance to deal with matters

under this vote. I understand that the Minister did introduce

what I think was entitled "instant registration" in the

Victoria office. This was intended to be a pilot project, I

guess. I think the Minister is on record as saying that this

would achieve some of the goals that I have mentioned of more

efficient, faster and more convenient registration for the

individual person requiring these services.

Since the Attorney-General, I gather, had meant to

follow up at the other six centres around the province, could

he tell us whether this instant registration system has been a

success and what comparative statistics there might be to show

whether there are fewer errors or to what degree the

performance of this new system compares with the continuing

orthodox system in the other six centres?

If, in fact, the Minister hasn't introduced the system at

the other six centres, is it because the Victoria system has

been less of a success than he had anticipated?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I wouldn't say less of a success. The

instant registration is continuing in Victoria. We're working

on a new land titles Act. In the other land registry offices I

understand registration is down to 24 to 48 hours, so we can't

say the others are failing. At the same time, we may move

towards the instant title, but that will depend on a new land

registry titles Act.

I might also say that that matter is dealt with in the

annual report of the department — which is very good

reading — on page 84. As a matter of fact, I intend to

set it aside as part of my summer reading. (Laughter.)

The instant registration has been in effect now for possibly

a little more than two years in the City of Victoria. Being

experimental, we're not really prepared to expand it to the

rest of the province pending this new legislation and pending

another close look at the success of the experiment. It seems

to be successful, though.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask, then, Mr. Chairman, whether

the other registrars in the other centres have made any

submissions to the Minister or suggested that they would like

the instant system introduced in their particular offices? In

other words, if two years isn't long enough to find out about

the new system and its validity, how much more time is

required? I would have thought that two years was plenty long

enough to determine whether it would be an ideal method to be

used elsewhere in the province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are two things we are looking at:

a new land titles Act and the computerization of the land

registry system. It's partly because of that that we're not

making immediate changes.

You know, one of the things that British Columbia, as a

little colony, can be proud of is its Torrens land registry

system. We were one of the first, along with New Zealand and

some other places, and we have an extremely good land registry

system, as everybody knows. But that doesn't mean that it can't

be improved. Those are the two things we're looking at: a new

land titles Act and computerization.

Vote 24 approved.

On vote 25: fire marshal's office, $467,170.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask about

the alarming number of fires in Vancouver,

[ Page 2673 ]

recently, which are purported to be not even arson. I

understand from the news broadcast they weren't even purported

to be arson. There was some other plot alluded to and I'm not

just sure what. You haven't heard anything about it? It was on

a news broadcast. (Laughter.) Well, I was just wondering if you

would have the fire marshals check into it and — if not

now — advise the Legislature as to what the findings have

been. I believe there was a fire Friday night. There have been

bank fires recently which were reported to be arson; the last

one was last Thursday night. I think you should advise the

Legislature if there's something.... The report said that it

wasn't even arson; that they were figuring it was...I don't

know what they were alluding to. But I'd like to know exactly

what.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we're doing two things. We

have authorized, among the other studies of CLEU, a look at

arson — you know, commercial fraud in the sense of arson

fires and the claiming of the insurance. That's going ahead.

Then the Keenleyside report on the whole question of fire

services in British Columbia.... I would think that on Monday

morning next I will receive that report, and it will give the

fire statistics, of course, and the necessity of improving our

fire services throughout the province. But in terms of the

particular fires in Vancouver that you've mentioned, I'm afraid

I'm not up to date with that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, will you find out and get a report from

the fire marshal's office and advise the Legislature at a later

date?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd be glad to do that.

MR. PHILLIPS: And how is the fire marshall's office

involved?

Mr. Chairman, is the fire marshal's office involved in...?

They're doing some surveys on burning cars to find out whether

they can have a look at a car much faster and find out whether

it's been caused by a fault in either the wiring or the

gasoline system of the car, or whether it's been arson. Now in

the reports that I've heard, there have been a tremendous

number of fires in automobiles, strictly to collect the

insurance.

At one time ICBC was paying out so swiftly that the police

had to go to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and say:

"Hey, hang off here; don't pay out these claims until we have a

check." Now what is the status of this? Where are we at? What

is the fire marshal's office doing in this? Have they slowed

down, advised ICBC to slow down in paying out these claims?

Just what are we at in that? Are you aware of that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll let you know. I know the

problem.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you will? You're saying that you will

advise the House? This is a very important matter, not only in

automobiles but in buildings in which there seems to be an

alarming number of arson cases. So you will advise?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will advise the House what the fire

marshal has done in respect to that problem of automobiles and

I will also inquire about these particular fires that you refer

to and what they've done about them.

MR. PHILLIPS: Fine, thank you very much. Just one other

item, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the

Attorney-General about. The supervision of propane

installations in homes now comes under the fire marshal's

office. Should this not really be under the Department of

Public Works, the same as natural gas? It's really the same

thing. There have been quite a few propane fires, particularly

in campers and mobile homes. I'm just wondering if the

supervision of propane installations shouldn't really be under

the Department of Public Works the same as natural gas

installations. Have you ever given this any consideration?

Hmmmm?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, late Member Brousson used to raise

that point, and we've looked at it. We don't rule it out as

something that should be done as a consolidation of services,

but I'm waiting for the report on the whole question of fire

services and inspection services in British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've had several people ask me about

this. Evidently it's more difficult to get an installation for

propane cleared through the fire marshal's office in remote

area because they're just not up to date. They don't know

what's going on and what the latest changes have been,

evidently. So I wish you'd take that under consideration,

because propane is a gas and I think the Department of Public

Works should probably.... Not that I give any great credit to

the Department of Public Works Minister (Hon. Mr. Hartley), but

to his staff. They're certainly....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We heard you the first time.

MR. PHILLIPS: He has an excellent staff there, a supervisory

staff. We're looking at the protection of life and limb. I

would like to see you take some immediate action on this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I am sure the Minister

[ Page 2674 ]

of Public Works will be delighted that you think that his

department should take on more responsibilities. I'll be glad

to tell him — I don't see him in the House right now

— of the confidence you have expressed in the Department

of Public Works.

MR. PHILLIPS: In his staff.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You know, in the fire service...you

talk about remote areas. The fire marshal is in Vancouver

— no regional offices — this is the kind of thing

you have to look at.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's all the more reason you should have

another Department of Public Works, and take it away from the

fire marshal's office. A lot of your propane installations are

in remote areas, and the Department of Public Works have staff

in the remote areas to look after the installations. Why don't

you move swiftly on this for once?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As long as you leave film classification

with me. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I wanted to ask in general terms why this vote

seems to be the poverty-stricken sister of the whole bunch. We

have criticized this government throughout this session for

extravagant spending, too many bureaucrats and too much staff....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Speak up so the Minister of Finance can

hear you.

MR. WALLACE: He can't hear because he is not in his own

chair.

We have an absolutely miserable increase in this vote of 6

per cent in dollars. We have exactly the same number of staff.

Yet, as I understand, we have a great increase in the number of

fires.

Unfortunately, if I might say so, the annual report of the

fire marshal doesn't seem to be available for 1974. The most

recent report I can find is for 1973, dated June 26, 1974.

First of all, maybe I could ask the Minister when we can

anticipate the annual report for the year 1974.

Referring back to the former annual report, it is obvious

that fires are on the increase. I too noticed the television

news report that the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) referred to. The commentator quite clearly said that

this is the third large fire in North Vancouver in 10 days. I

wasn't aware that there was any evidence one way or the other

about how they were being started, but the commentator made it

very plain that the incidence of such large fires within such a

short period of time could hardly be considered, on the law of

averages, to be coincidence.

Quite frequently we hear of school fires. The Minister knows that over the

last year or so one school burned down. I can't remember the exact location,

but I think it was a teenager who burned it down. It got a lot of publicity.

Regardless of these individual fires, look at this vote with

a 6 per cent increase. Through this whole session by this

government to justify a lot of its 25 and 30 per cent increases

here, there and everywhere all we have been hearing is: "Oh,

the terrible effects of inflation." Well, inflation doesn't

seem to be affecting the fire marshal's office.

I don't mean to keep specifying juvenile delinquents, but

there have been fires.... They burned down a building out in

Surrey a couple of weekends ago. And we have this incident that

we have talked about with the fires in North Vancouver and so

on. It seems to me that with some of the problems we have I

just have to ask the Minister how he has any hope at all of

meeting the description under vote 25 which talks about the

investigation and holding of inquiries into fires, conditions

under which they are likely to recur, research, prevention and

assistance in the formation and training of volunteer

firefighting forces. This is the description of this vote in

our book of estimates. I am completely puzzled to understand

how, in inflationary times, the Minister can begin to try and

convince us in this House that with a miserable increase of 6

per cent in dollars you can possible take on more functions. It

seems to me that it will be very difficult for the Fire

Marshal's office to even keep up with what it is supposed to be

doing.

I do hope that the Minister of Finance is listening. I'm

sure that he doesn't want fires any more than the

Attorney-General does. There are enough fires in this

House sometimes to almost lead to catastrophe. There must be

some explanation as to why the Minister is being so miserable

toward the fire marshal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, when I came into office,

one of the most starved and neglected services in the

department was the fire marshal. There was just one office in

the province. Their salaries were not comparable with the

firefighting services which are organized with unions of chiefs

and men, therefore they had difficulty recruiting. Their

training programme was very rudimentary. They had a travelling

training programme that was doing fairly well in getting around

the province to the volunteer brigades, but not very well.

That's why I commissioned the Keenleyside study.

This note doesn't reflect what should happen in this area. I

might say, however, that the increase would be much greater in

dollar figures but for the fact that the salary increases in

vote 25 are reflected in vote 30, the contingency increase

vote. That doesn't prevail through all the estimates, but in

this

[ Page 2675 ]

case it does. This does not include the salary increases.

But I agree with you. I think we'll have that report possibly

on Monday and I hope all Hon. Members will read the report.

Then it becomes a matter of priorities. It's something where

government should give some priorities to improve the fire

services as hopefully we've improved the police services in the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It would seem that where there's fire

there's smoke.

I don't know why the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is

criticizing. I thought that he would be standing up to support

the fire marshal's office fighting the fires of inflation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'll never set the heather on fire

that way.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Fighting the fires of inflation is what

we're doing right inside this one vote, and I think that we

should be commending the Minister for taking this stand.

But when I consider, Mr. Chairman, the vast increases there

have been in the expenditures for other services for the

protection of people and property — that's the police,

and I suppose this is because of the enormous publicity which

surrounds crime and the consequences of crime in society

— I would have thought that the government would have

looked more carefully at this particular service. I think that

it's well past time, as the Attorney-General says, that

this service was upgraded and able to do a better job. Even

without crime, fire has very serious consequences for losses of

life and limb and property, and for the firemen themselves. I

think they're to be commended, just as the police are, for the

risks that they run on behalf of society.

There's one particular area that I wonder if the

Attorney-General could comment on. It may not be the

direct responsibility of the fire marshal's office, but if it's

not it should be. That is the intolerable situation which has

apparently arisen in the City of Vancouver with regard to the

safety precautions for hotels.

For five years the firefighters, the fire chief and his

department in the City of Vancouver have been struggling to

bring about necessary changes in hotel construction as it

applies to fire prevention and fire safety — the

installation of fire escapes, sprinkler systems and so on. They

ran into delay after delay after delay, because apparently the

cost is considerable and what happens is that they're getting

resistance from owners and people who operate hotels under

lease. They just won't spend the money.

Recently I was startled to read that Chief Koenig of the City of Vancouver

is now saying that they have a number of charges laid against owners of hotels

and operators of the hotels for failing to live up to the standards of the bylaw

and the chief admitting that under the laws as they presently stand, and the

standards of evidence required in the courts, they're not going to be successful

and that these defaulting owners and operators of hotels are going to get off

scot-free. This has been taken up by the Attorney-General's good friend,

Alderman Rankin of the City of Vancouver, and he just said it's ridiculous,

that the prosecutors don't know their business and are not doing their job if

this is the case, but this is what the fire chief says.

It seems to me that if the City of Vancouver, with its

extensive fire service, is having this kind of difficulty, this

is something that the provincial fire marshal should be looking

into. I would think that the Attorney-General would not

stand idly by and have the prosecutors criticized and, in

effect, the provincial courts criticized for inability to

enforce the laws of the City of Vancouver dealing with such an

important matter as the safety of the lives of people who seek

accommodation in hotels. Now I'm not saying this applies to all

hotels, but the startling thing is that it applies to the

hotels that are also referred to as being kind of slum

landlords, and therefore the people who would normally seek

accommodation in those places are those for whom fire and loss

of their personal belongings would even be of greater

consequence.

If this is such a major problem that the City of Vancouver

and its fire service cannot enforce the bylaw, then it would

seem to me that the fire marshal should step in and say, "We're

going to look at this situation," because if it applies

in the City of Vancouver I have to wonder if it applies to

other major centres in the province. Have we reached the

situation where the travelling public — our own citizens

and those who come from outside our boundaries to get

accommodation — are perhaps exposing themselves to some

extreme danger that could be avoided if the law were improved

and enforced? This surely must be a provincial responsibility,

not just left to individual local governments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll look at that.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a

few words on this vote.

The incidence of arson in my riding is of some concern to

myself and to the people residing in the Shuswap. In the last

two years we've had three major school fires and two of them

were proven arson. Just in the last two or three weeks the

Mainline Co-op was burned down. That was proven arson but

they haven't charged anybody with it yet.

In a rural riding such as Shuswap I think that this is very

significant. I think it's something that we

[ Page 2676 ]

should all be concerned about. One of my concerns is why we

don't have any form of patrolling or anybody working as

maintenance staff in public buildings during off hours. I think

that possibly this is one area where the fire marshal and the

Department of Education and school boards could be working

together to see that somebody is on staff in off hours, even if

they are a maintenance person doing the upkeep of the building

or something like that, to see that there is some protection

there for those buildings. I think I'm quite safe in saying

that the schools that have been destroyed in my riding in the

last two years would amount to $5 million — somewhere in

that neighbourhood. That would pay for an awful lot of staff in

regard to seeing that there was some kind of protection against

arson not only in rural areas but in the City of Vancouver and

other urban areas.

I think that there must be an area where the Department of

Education and the fire marshal's department could work together

to see that there is some sort of protection in the schools. I

think that this could even be broadened into private industry

through the fire marshal's office, where they're into large

plants where the fire marshal could dictate that there must be

somebody on as a watchman or on staff in the large premises in

off hours to cut down on the arson that we're experiencing in

the province.

I would hope that the Attorney-General and the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) would give some

thought to this — not just to the schools, for we have

government buildings as well that are susceptible to this type

of thing.

Vote 25 approved.

On vote 26: film classification office, $79,632.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a few

basic questions of the Attorney-General because I well

remember the debate we had when this legislation was

introduced. Oh, dear me! We just couldn't have censorship in

British Columbia; we would have a "film classification

director." This, really, if one looks at the facts, is nothing

more than a euphemism to describe the censor in British

Columbia. I've read his report and my office has talked to the

director on the telephone. He also is not happy that I should

suggest that there is censorship of films in British Columbia.

But when one gets down to specifics, we find that in 1973, 20

films were rejected and in 1974, 14 were rejected.

I know that somebody's going to stand up and say: "Goodness me,

there were 1,100 films or more inspected by the director. If you only

turn down 20 or 14, surely that's not very many." But the point I would

like to ask the Attorney-General is: why were these films rejected? If

they were rejected for a reason and the reason was decided by one man

in this province, is that not censorship? It seems to me that we're

really indulging in semantics when the director himself.... I'm not

attacking this man in any way personally; he's doing a job he's being

asked to do. What I am saying is that we're being less than frank in

the description of this man's job title. If one man decides that 20

films should be rejected, why were they rejected?

The answer I get when I contact his office I think is

somewhat roundabout. He says that these films didn't fit into

any one of the three categories. The three categories are

general, mature and restricted. I just want to know why the 20

films in 1973 and the 14 films in 1974 were rejected. If you

can't find them fitting into one of these three categories, and

even if this is not possible — again, I think we're

indulging in semantics — does this not constitute

censorship?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: One of the Members interjects that the films

were probably categorized as being filthy. That isn't really

the point either. I don't care what the title might be in terms

of describing the film; I'm saying that we have a person

employed under legislation in this province to censor movies.

If we're going to censor movies, why shouldn't we censor books

and all other kinds of communication?

I am just raising the point that this House passed

legislation under the clear understanding.... I can remember

very well the Minister making the point several times in debate

that this was not censorship, it was simply classification.

The two points I would like to make are that if some films

are rejected, then does this not constitute censorship?

Secondly, of some of the ones that have been passed, if we are

going to have censorship we might as well, I think, do it a

little better than we are doing and not show some of the films

which have to be described as being brutal, thoroughly

disgusting and all the other very culturally undesirable terms

which the classification director feels he has, in all honesty,

to attach to some of the films which are permitted to be viewed

in public movie houses.

So there are two questions I would like answered. First of

all: do we or do we not have censorship in this province? I

think we do, in light of the figures and statements I have

quoted from the Attorney-General's annual report and also

from contact with the director's office. Secondly: if we do

have censorship, is there not room to be more discriminating in

some of the movies? I've already referred to one particular

film which seemed to me, on the basis of its description and

its title, to serve no elevating purpose for anybody in

society. I am referring to "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"

— I think that is the title of the movie.

[ Page 2677 ]

The Attorney-General mentions that he had no

complaints about it. Again, I just want to make the point that

whether or not you receive complaints isn't perhaps the best

indication of the effect of that kind of movie on the minds of

individuals who go to see that kind of movie.

I know that I will be branded as some

dyed-in-the-wool old conservative who can't

move with the times and who is narrow-minded. I'll accept

all that criticism because it is totally false criticism. The

fact is that there are many people in society who are very

perturbed about some of the movie& that are shown. We stand

up in this House and scream and shout about permissiveness,

violence and people breaking the law; we get all upset about

the juvenile delinquent. In many ways I am not surprised that

society is breaking down in many of the ways that it is because

of the kind of extremely open and apparently unlimited kinds of

movies, literature, magazines and many other types of material

that is put before the public.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: "The Good Life" was one step. Remember

"The Good Life"? (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: The question I asked about advertising in the

Georgia Strait was laughed at by a lot of people, too, But I am

just saying, Mr. Chairman, that society can't have its cake and

eat it. If society feels that we must have this very wide open,

unlimited and unrestricted kind of promotion of many ideas,

concepts and practices which really don't evaluate society,

then we have to suffer the consequences.

Some of these consequences, I believe, are very obvious in

the fact that society is breaking down. We had Bora Laskin, the

senior man in the Supreme Court of Canada, making a very

impassioned plea at the weekend that we have to respect law,

that laws are made, and whether you like them or not, society,

if it is to be civilized and progressive, has to respect the

laws. If you are unhappy with them, work within the framework

of the law to get them changed.

I just say that in this whole area of film classification,

specifically I think it is time we took the position one way or

the other: we either censor movies, or do a better job than we

are doing, or we tell the classification director not to reject

any movies, and however bad they are, put the appropriate title

on them because censorship is not a matter of degree; you

either censor or you don't censor. This legislation was passed

on the basis that it would be purely classification, and I just

don't think it is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Last year when I discussed this with the

Attorney-General, we discussed the question of why on earth across the

country we have a whole series of provincial film classifiers. He told

me then that he would be looking closely into amalgamation with his

western Canadian colleagues and his other Canadian colleagues.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's a conference in September

next.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is a conference in September next,

but it is 12 months since I raised the question with him. While

I understand the Attorney-General's office moves with

more speed than some other government departments, the delay

that has taken place worries me.

I repeat what I said then: I don't think we need a film

classification office, The films are essentially the same. It

is not as though there is a whole crop of B.C.-made films

which have to be censored here and which would not be shown in

any other province or in any other jurisdiction in the United

States. The film industry is international.

We need only a recognizable, acceptable film office, whether

it be done in conjunction with Ontario, Alberta and ourselves,

perhaps funding a central film classification agency. I just

fail to see why this extra expense to the public should be

borne.

I am sure that the film classifier is doing a yeoman's job.

I can't think of any job that could be more distasteful than

looking at three dirty movies a day, which I presume he has to

do on certain days. But he is no doubt working desperately hard

checking on cleavages of varying sorts...on the film. No

doubt he is having a very onerous and tough time in this

particular slot that we, the people of British Columbia, have

asked him to undertake, but why should he do it? Why should we

have all this duplication?

It is not a question of handing us over to the federal

authorities. It is a question of just a little bit of

co-ordination. As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

said, we have real conflict in whether or not it is

classification or censorship and how much is clipped.

I think that it is time we started looking into these things

not only at the provincial level but elsewhere. As you know,

Mr. Attorney-General, the mayor of Victoria has

just established a morality squad. It's called Peter Pollen's

Prude Control. It runs around looking at the only topless night

club in Victoria. My brother happens to be a member of it and

of course they always give him excellent seats. Now we have

Macdonald's Movie Morality Movement or whatever this could be

classified as. I really don't think they are necessary.

First, if you want classification, there is absolutely no

individual British Columbia viewpoint on film classification

which requires a separate office. Our attitude on

classification is undoubtedly 99 per cent

[ Page 2678 ]

the same as Alberta or Ontario.

The Attorney-General shakes his head and says there is

a different structure of morality in British Columbia or a

different attitude?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the Prairies I would think so.

(Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps he knows more about prairie life

and how to entertain yourself on those long prairie winters

than the rest of us. There are books, which he has perhaps

read, about the influence of the red light on prairie

development. Pierre Berton wrote a book about ladies of

doubtful virtue in the early years of the prairies. Perhaps the

Attorney-General is judging by that.

The fact is that Ontario and Alberta are really not

materially different provinces. If we are dealing with

classification it should be quite possible to arrange a

cost-saving joint programme.

This is a flagrant example of waste and abuse of taxpayers'

money due to provincial duplication. I say this knowing full

well that the individuals involved work very hard and

conscientiously. But they are working at something that

everybody else is doing elsewhere across the country's

jurisdictions. It is unnecessary. We are promised an

examination of it. If the government is serious about that 10

per cent reduction in costs — which few of us believe

— surely this is one vote that we should defeat. Then we

will pick up classifications from elsewhere. We could see over

the next three months or whenever the meeting is taking place

whether or not it is necessary to have this office. Give these

people three months' leave with pay. Let them do nothing. Let

them rest their eyeballs from watching the screen which,

presumably, they are pretty fed up with. Let's see whether

classifications from elsewhere can be accepted and used in B.C.

in that period. I say defeat this vote.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I would like to express my gratification

and thanks to Mr. McDonald, the film classification editor for

British Columbia. I think he is doing an outstanding job in a

very, very difficult field. The number of motion picture films

of varying quality which are being produced and offered for

distribution in British Columbia is rapidly changing. The

exposure to matters that may raise questions of morality is

also increasing. I think that it is

ever-so-important that we continue to have this

function in British Columbia.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) expresses his concern about censorship

and says that we must make up our minds — we can't have our cake and eat it

too. I would remind the Member for Oak Bay that in the strict sense of the word

you never really have your cake until you've eaten it. I think this has been

proven by the operation of this film classification service.

I suppose that the government's way out of the dilemma that

is posed by the Member for Oak Bay is to have Mr. McDonald

continue with all of his classification techniques. Those that

displayed in a movie house in Oak Bay. Then there would be at

least some place in the province where those rejected films

could be seen. Or maybe they could be shown in Victoria and

Mayor Pollen's organization could go and look at them. At least

they wouldn't be kept away from the public. Then the problem

posed by the Member for Oak Bay would be resolved.

When I consider that there are very, very few films that Mr.

McDonald can't classify, when I consider what is included in

those that he can classify, I'm really startled that anyone

would suggest that those that can't find any place in Mr.

McDonald's rather wide spectrum should be worried about.

But there is one aspect on which I would like to ask the

Attorney-General in this connection and that is the

extent to which the film classification division concerns

itself with matters of violence as they appear in movies. Now

we are aware that the Government of Ontario has come to have

some considerable concern about this in respect of television,

and they have established a study to concern itself with what

the consequences of violence on television may be creating for

the society in that province. It would seem to me that, while

no direct action perhaps need be taken in British Columbia, we

could at least be getting some statistics from the film

classification office with regard to what Mr. McDonald sees as

any change in the emphasis which is being made with respect to

violence.

I recently saw some movies, some of which have won Academy

Awards, in which most violent scenes are portrayed. I can't

help but believe that part of the difficulty the

Attorney-General's department is facing with regard to

juvenile conduct and other conduct in the society can be linked

to this kind of portrayal on the motion picture screen of the

province and television as well. I'm thinking of things like

"The Godfather." It's bad enough when you shoot somebody, but

when you consider the other extremes of violent behaviour that

were shown in that movie, it seems to me that there should be

some careful examination made. This is something that would

then return to the people some benefits, just rather than being

forewarned in advance that perhaps some coarse language would

be found in a motion picture.

If it is the experience of the film classification editor

that he is experiencing more and more violence in movies, then

maybe the government should look very seriously at whether or

not the Attorney-General, together with the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), shouldn't concern himself with

some study in depth into this matter of

[ Page 2679 ]

violence in movies and TV.

[Mr. Skelly in the chair.]

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say a few

words on this vote.

I have a great deal of concern for the type of movies that

are being shown in the province at the present time, and I

certainly support the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in his

view on the subject. In fact, I would go further.

I can't see where the right type of climate can exist within

our theatres unless we do expand on censorship. Now I know that

that's a bad word and many people will really get up in arms

and say that the government is being dictatorial and

interfering with their rights. But I think when we see shows

that depict violence to the extent that are being shown in the

theatres today, and almost continually...and the shows that

draw the biggest crowds are these types of shows. You can

generally go to a theatre and see a show like this and the

majority of the crowd will be young people. I certainly have

some concern that young people of today start to think that

this is the right way to live, that this is the way they should

be reacting.

Some of these shows are brutal, sadistic, and I think that

they're degrading to the human being.

I'm not so concerned about sex. I know that some of the sexy

shows are far out. I'm not quite so concerned about them as I

am with the brutality and the sadistic films that are being

shown in the province at this time.

Also the coarse language that comes forth in these shows: I

don't see why it's necessary for a movie house or for the

industry to attract people by every second word being a swear

word. I think that somewhere along the line there has to be

some code of ethics.

I'm not blaming the movie houses because I understand they

must purchase, or they are often put in the position where they

have to purchase, a packaged deal, and this package deal will

include one or two very rank films.

I think we have the responsibility as legislators to see

that the young people in particular are protected from this

type of show that is being shown in the province at this

time.

I would like to say that I'm far from being a prude. But

when I attend some of these shows.... I know they're marked

"mature" when I go, and I think that I'm mature enough to

handle it, but I'll tell you that some of these violent shows

shake me, and after I go home I often have a restless night due

to the content of that show.

I know that maybe the Province of British Columbia can't do

enough on its own to influence the movie-makers, but I'm

sure that if the Attorneys-General of all the provinces are concerned

enough about it and start to use some form of censorship that

stops the flow of these types of shows, we'll have an influence

on these movie-makers.

I would certainly hope that the Attorney-General would

take a look at this. I think many people throughout the

province are most concerned about the type of films that are

being shown. They say that they are classified; I don't think

that they are classified enough. I certainly believe that there

has to be a stricter form of censorship.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in closing the debate....

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I don't.

The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) brought

up a suggestion which, I think, merits consideration. If, say,

the Province of Ontario has rated a film, should Ray McDonald

and his people...? I appreciate the compliment that was paid

to him; they are doing a very good public service. Should they

be required to re-rate that film for British Columbia

consumption? At the interprovincial gathering we are convening

in this province in September, I hope that is the kind of thing

that will be discussed, as well as the other remarks on this

subject that come up in this Legislature.

The thing that I agree with most is the violence — all

my being says that censorship does not help to improve human

attitudes and behaviour, that the truth should hang out. Yet

when you see the things that you see on television,

particularly, and partly the shows...but people can stay away

from the shows if they want. With television it's pretty hard

— it's right in the home. People are becoming habituated

to violence, and the wellsprings of human empathy or sympathy

dry up. After you have seen for the 100th time somebody being

callously shot on television, sometimes even by a police

officer or a private operator who is supposed to have some kind

of a code of ethics, then any kind of a sympathy feeling for

the victim disappears. There comes a callous attitude. We

become habituated to violence — as if the Godfather

syndrome was just as natural as taking a drink of water.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the victims are the last people.

The fellow with the gun is the hero, the fellow with the fists.

The Kung-fu debater in this House is a hero of the whole

House. (Laughter.)

[ Page 2680 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What has been said here, I'm sure, will

be communicated to Mr. Ray McDonald. Once again, I appreciate

what was said in reference to his difficult job and the way he

is carrying it out.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we have this similar, if not

same, debate each year in this House under this vote. We get

the same blandishments from the Attorney-General that, of

course, the director will listen to what we've said here. But

the fact is that nothing changes. All of us who have spoken

today have talked about the damage to society from many of the

films that deal particularly with violence. The Minister, who

just sat down, acknowledged that this is a valid concern of

many people in society.

My question is: what are you going to do about it? What's

going to be done? Do we just go on next year and next year

standing here and saying: "What a pity! What a bad effect it's

having on our young people! It's causing crime in society by

example. Dear me! Oh, my goodness, what a pity!" What I want to

know is when are we going to do something about it.

I keep making a point and it seems to be rejected. The

question is that we are just playing with words. We have

censorship to a degree, but who decides what degree of violence

should be shown to the public, and what should not be

shown?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Would you like to decide?

MR. WALLACE: I'm not asking to decide that, Mr. Member for

Langley. I never said that for a moment. We do have one man....

I'm not criticizing that one man, he's trying to do a job, but

he's being asked to do an impossible job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three people.

MR. WALLACE: Or three people.

The Member for Langley interjects: "Do you want to do it?"

No, I don't. It should not be the decision of one individual.

The guidelines or the ground rules should be spelled out in a

more effective way than is being done for Mr. McDonald or any

other human being landed with that job. Or alternatively, we

should acknowledge, as the Minister said, that maybe you let it

all hang out and anything goes.

But I think that we're just kidding ourselves and kidding

society when we say that we have classification which, in

effect, is censorship. Even that censorship is allowing a

substantial degree of violence to be propagated in films, which

very often, as the Minister said, turn up on television and

young people.... Whether the title of the film is

designated "mature" or not doesn't matter very much if it comes across

on a television screen — even in advertising the movie,

as we all know happens. The little clips they show as to where

the movie's going to be shown and what the highlights are

— very often it's the most violent part of the whole film

that shows up on the little 10-second clip.

I want to make it very plain, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not

trying to suggest that I have the answers or that there should

be one person given total autonomy in this area.

I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense for us to debate

it in this way, year after year after year, and say, "What a

pity it is that there is all this violence on film," but

do very little about it. In fact, we are doing nothing about it

because, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) said very eloquently, if some of the films that

are passed, such as the ones that have been mentioned —

"The Godfather" and the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" — if

they are being classified by the director as being acceptable

by society, goodness knows what kind of brutality there may be

in the films that were rejected.

But that is my whole point. Who decides at what point that

this degree of brutality should be shown to the public but that

degree is more than the public can stomach? I don't think that

brutality and violence can be measured in degrees.

It just saddens me that we have this debate each year. We

see some of the very undesirable consequences of these kinds of

film and yet, for whatever reason I know not, we take very

little action. I just wonder if it is because we are all scared

to stand up in public and be accused, as one Member said, of

being a prude or being narrow-minded or just not being

with it in this so-called permissive society we are

living in. I think a lot of the permissiveness and certainly a

lot of the criminal behaviour in society can only feed on the

kind of films that are shown with great regularity in every

movie house across this country.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

All I am saying is that if we are not going to do anything about it, I suppose

we should all just sit down and shut up, because it is with us, it is part of

society. If we are not prepared, as legislators, to try and take some other

direction to minimize its effects, then I suppose we shouldn't even debate it.

That's what's so disappointing to me, that the Attorney-General seems not

to be willing even to set up some kind of committee of review or a commission

or some kind of study which would give the public an opportunity to tell us,

the legislators, that despite all the disadvantages of cruelty on the screen,

they feel that we will stay with things the way they are; or maybe society does

want some changes. I

[ Page

2681 ]

don't know and nobody in this House knows.

I don't think we should stand here and berate the problems

or get concerned about them but do nothing. I think the very

least we should be doing is trying to find out on the very

widest possible basis from society, from the people in British

Columbia, what they feel about this trend and whether we should

attempt to limit it, or whether we should let it run free, or

whether we should abolish the whole idea of censorship at

all.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) says we have to give our views. I'm trying to give

mine, to say that I am concerned. But I don't set myself up as

being somebody who knows all the answers or to impose them on

anybody else. That's a decision for the majority of people in

society.

I'm suggesting that there is a great deal of potential to

seek public input because the situation, I think, has changed

substantially in the last few years. It would seem to me that

while, as the Member for Victoria says, we are elected to make

decisions, there are a whole lot of areas for which we are

elected to make decisions. You can take mining, for example,

and a whole lot of others. Nevertheless this House has often

discussed the idea of royal commissions on certain subjects. We

don't just decide everything because we are elected. There are

many areas where it is important to get up-to-date

input from the people most concerned; and the people most

concerned in this issue are all citizens in the province.

I wonder if the Minister would consider that proposal.

MR. LEWIS: I just want to voice one other concern that I

noted while attending movies. It seems that the

movie-makers at this time if they feel they have a

product that will sell on the basis of anti-law or

anti-authority.... But generally the movies that come

out now depict the criminal as the hero and the police as the

villain. I think that this is a very unhealthy thing we are

going through right at this time.

I saw the show, "The Longest Yard," which I thought

was filmed excellently. It was a good show, but the total

concept of the movie was that the guards were the villains and

the prisoners were the heroes. I noted while the show was in

progress that when one of the guards was having his arm broken

off, the young people in the audience were cheering and

hollering in support of the people who were in the institution

doing it.

I think that this is a very unhealthy thing, and I think that this is the type

of thing that the classifier or the censor should be looking at. It really concerns

me, and I think that there are many areas that the

government or the people in charge should be taking a look

at.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions,

and a comment about this whole question of classification

versus censorship.

I personally feel that in this province we are very

fortunate in having a person like Mr. McDonald, who does what I

consider to be an excellent job of warning the people, telling

the people what to expect in their favourite movie theatre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ray McDonald.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Ray McDonald. We make that very clear.

I would hate to see us go very much further than that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All the same tribe.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we can't blame the motion

picture industry or the television industry for the attitudes

we have in society. I think if we start to attempt to do that,

then we're making a very serious mistake and we're copping out

by not changing those attitudes in society which would then

reflect, I think, in the kind of motion pictures and television

programmes we get.

I agree with the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) about films

like "The Longest Yard" and "Clockwork Orange"; they make me

sick. Nevertheless, I don't have to go to see those films, and

as long as I'm told that that's the kind of film I'm going to

see — in a programme of classification as we have in

British Columbia, I think that's all we can ask to have done as

legislators.

I can remember, too, a long time ago going to see a film

called "Mondo Cane." There was a scene in that film of, I

think, a concert hall where a group of men, apparently picked

up off the street, down-and-outers, were dressed up

in tuxedos and they were slapped in the face to the tune of

symphony orchestra until the men's faces were bleeding, their

glasses knocked off. It was a terribly sad scene. Yet I was in

that movie theatre and watched the people with a totally wrong

reaction; they were laughing at that, you know. I wondered what

was wrong there. But we can't cure that by any form of

censorship; that's an attitude of society that has to be cured.

We can't go any further in what we're doing as lawmakers in

this province.

If we had any censorship, I think we should censor some of

the bad movies we get. You know, you're really taking your life

in your hands to go to a movie now, trying to find one that's

any good because most of them are very bad. They aren't very

many good movies being made. If Ray McDonald could expand his

classification, perhaps he could say that this is a

[ Page 2682 ]

thoroughly bad movie — don't go unless you don't want

to be entertained; you may want to walk out in the middle of

this movie. I think that would be far better than trying to

censor films.

If Mr. McDonald and his staff rejected a handful of movies

this year because they couldn't classify them, I'm convinced

that those movies were so thoroughly objectionable that nobody

would ever want those movies on any screen in British Columbia.

I'm sure that he had very good reason for rejecting those

movies, and I don't think we've had any loss because of

that.

I'd like to ask a technical, specific question of the

Attorney-General, too. What is this restricted

motion-picture trailer expense? It's $3,000. Does that to

do with...?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the cat. A new cat has been

ordered.

MR. McCLELLAND: Cat food?

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: I know what the cat is, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: We had to order a new cat. The old one....

MR. McCLELLAND: You ordered a new cat. Okay. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, $3,000 is a lot of cat

food. It's Pamper, I Suppose, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's all those balls of yarn.

MR. McCLELLAND: I notice that we only have one projectionist

in this film classification office, and that projectionist

didn't get a raise this year — getting the same pay as

last year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's in vote 30.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, there's a raise somewhere for that. Oh,

salary contingencies, again. Okay. I don't see why you couldn't

have just said that this projectionist gets a raise, and put it

in the budget. I would suggest that since that person —

only one person — probably has to view an awful lot of

pretty trashy movies, that person should at least get danger

pay if you're not going to give a raise. Give danger pay, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Many movies, as has been pointed out, are

not accurately portrayed. For instance, an Hon. Member in this

House, who shall remain nameless, has informed me that he went

to see "Linda Lovelace for President," thinking that he

would be picking up a few hot tips of American campaigning for

his next election. He discovered in the opening scene that the

Public Disclosures Act of British Columbia had been extended to

this lady in the nude. He realized that he had come to the

wrong movie, one which was inaccurately described.

Is there any chance of having a refund? Would the Attorney-General

approve of the idea of having a person getting their money refunded,

because films cost a fair bit these days, if they left after t I he

first half hour if they found the movie so disgusting.? After all,

surely if there's going to be an effort made to encourage people to not

go to these movies, and they are misdescribed, as mentioned by the Hon.

Member for Langley, why not allow them to have a refund?Bring in something like that.

There is one more serious point, Mr. Attorney-General,

and I hope that you will deal with this as best as you can. A

lot has been said this morning about the connection between

violence on the screen and violence in society, generally.

Every speaker who has spoken has assumed there is a direct and

causal connection. I don't know whether there is. The

Attorney-General shrugs and says he doesn't know either.

But if anybody in this House knows, it should be the man who's

responsible not only for the film classifications, but also

responsible for law enforcement and crime prevention in the

Province of British Columbia. So his shrug simply appalls

me.

I would like him now to get up and tell us what material is

available, what studies he has done, what CLEU or all the other

investigations that are being carried on have done to indicate

whether there is a direct and causal connection.

Some people have argued the reverse. Some people have said

that once you've seen everybody battered around on the screen,

you go home with all your hostilities out of your system, and

you're kind and friendly to all society and you pat your dog,

et cetera, et cetera. I don't know whether that's so, but

surely if anybody in this House can give us information upon

causal connection, it's the Attorney-General. I would ask

him to stand up and tell us what he knows, or tell us where the

studies are being done and how much money he's putting into the

studies that are going to find out. It's no good having

censorship; it's no good having television screens banned the

way they do in South Africa. In South Africa they simply don't

have television, on the grounds that it encourages violence,

and yet it's a very violent society.

I wonder whether the Attorney-General knows anything

about the connection between violence on

[ Page 2683 ]

the screen, violence on the television set and violence

generally in society.

The Attorney-General shakes his head and indicates he

knows nothing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is just the existing literature

from all over the world where this question is being debated

and I haven't found anybody with a definitive answer.

Vote 26 approved.

Vote 27: racing commission, $192,478 — approved.

On vote 28: British Columbia Energy Commission,

$911,924.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I think while we're on this vote

that the Hon. Attorney-General should give the committee

the benefit of his thoughts on the proposed trip by the Hon.

Premier and probably himself to England to talk to the British

about oil refineries in the Province of British Columbia. I

think the Attorney-General should tell us if they're

going to try to woo the British into becoming partners in this

tremendous new project in the Province of British Columbia. How

much money do you think the British will put into it, and do

you intend, Mr. Attorney-General, to seek out the

tremendous technology of the British respecting the development

of oil refineries in relation to the one that you'd like to see

built in British Columbia?

Also, I think that now is the time for the

Attorney-General to tell us what is the justification for

an oil refinery, another one in British Columbia, at this time,

which will cost the taxpayers of this province....

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Oh, you're not going to use taxpayers' dollars. I

understood that the profits from the sale of natural gas would

be used to help build a refinery to the tune of $350 million. I

suggest that that is far too low in terms of other refineries

that have come on stream in current years. Probably if you're

looking at a 100,000-barrel refinery per day, a

conservative estimate would be $500 million, not $350 million,

because nobody today will go out on a limb and say that they

can construct refining capacity for $3,500 per barrel today;

it's more like $5,000 today. Technology is changing.

One of the other things I think I'd like to raise at this time is the thought

and the position held by many people already in the petroleum industry that

the refinery itself contributes nothing and that it is not a profitable proposition

from the standpoint of making dollars. It provides a few extra jobs, but in

relation to the investment the number of jobs is not large by any stretch of

the imagination. A few dozen people when a refinery is finally built will handle

the entire operation, with the automation that we have in refineries today.

If it is true that the refining capacity is really just an

enlarged pressure vessel that has to be used as a midway

process — as a middle step between the product in the

ground in its raw form and the product at the other end in a

refined form that can be used commercially — and that

there's really no profit in refining petroleum products, then

what justification have we for building a refinery in the

Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We are producing right now in B.C.

40,000 to 50,000 barrels a day.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Attorney-General, our refining capacity

in the Province of British Columbia today, without spending one

nickel, is far greater than our capacity to produce crude oil.

You know that yourself. We're only producing about 40 per cent

of the refined product that is presently going through the

existing refineries in B.C.

Also, the records show that the production of crude oil in

British Columbia peaked about two years ago. Since then it has

gone downhill. So certainly unless exploration is accelerated

and new areas of potential crude production are found in this

province....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will be; think positively!

MR. SMITH: There's been a tremendous amount of money already

spent in that direction, Mr. Attorney-General. While our

success in finding natural gas has been relatively high

compared to other areas of Canada and the United States,

success in finding new crude oil in this province has not been

worth a darn, and you know that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've got to have faith.

MR. SMITH: Have faith? Well....

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: You have to have oil if you're going to stock a

refinery. We just don't have it at the present time. Unless we

find another Leduc somewhere in British Columbia, there is very

good reason to believe that we won't have it in the future. So

it would look like we have to plan on import products from

either Alberta or offshore. If it's

[ Page 2684 ]

offshore, are we going to use tankers? How are you going to

get crude in? Pipeline? Pipe it under the ocean?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Canadian supplies.

MR. SMITH: Canadian supplies. There is no guarantee that

Alberta is that anxious to sell crude oil to British Columbia.

They certainly have a demand for more crude than they can

produce at the present time. I think these are questions that

are legitimate under the estimates of the Minister.

One other thing that I'd like to raise and explore with the

Minister is his thoughts about the overall energy requirement

in the Province of British Columbia. There's been a report

developed, and we have that from the B.C. Energy Commission.

But I think that we have to go further than that and maybe set

up a royal commission to investigate the whole field of energy

sources and supplies and needs in the Province of British

Columbia in relation to what we have presently.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The energy commission is doing that. It

will be updating its report.

MR. SMITH: Yes, a report they've done, which is a

substantial volume, I agree. But then if you look at that same

report, Mr. Attorney-General, the figures produced

indicate a gradual increase in the amount of consumption in the

Province of British Columbia respecting crude oil in a refined

form. But there's nothing that shows that a refinery of 100,000-barrel-per-day capacity will be needed

in this province, at least if I read these graphs correctly,

until the late 1980s, which is certainly a number of years

away. Even at the high rate of projection, the existing

capacity with some upgrading will take care of our requirements

in British Columbia. We have about 140,000 barrels per day, in

that range.

There is reason to believe that the existing refineries can

upgrade their facilities somewhat and increase that by at least

25,000 barrels per day. We could look at 150,000 to 160,000

within two years' time. The projections of requirement do not

relate to a much greater need for capacity than that for some

years to come, even if you take the lead time that's necessary

for the construction of a refinery, which could be —

what? It could be five years in building depending on the size

of the facility you wish to build and the technology that's

available to you at the present time. Five years perhaps.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not that long with this government.

MR. SMITH: There's certainly nothing to indicate that we need the refinery

at the present time. There's certainly nothing to indicate that the building

of a refinery will in any way produce dollars of profit which can be used for

other services for the people in the Province of British Columbia. So I think

the Attorney-General owes an explanation to the committee of what he thinks

about refineries and why we require one now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I think we're probably on

the wrong vote in discussing the refinery. But if I can be out

of order for a minute, let me say that in spite of some of the

difficulties in Great Britain, their technology is at the top

of the world. It's also true to say that in the refinery field

some of their projects of engineering in places like Cyprus

have been extremely modern, efficient and pollution-free.

I think it's time that we in British Columbia began to renew

some of our connections with Great Britain and not be solely

dependent on the United States of America and not be too timid

in the face of international oil companies, led by Exxon.

If you go through the things that have been done in the

energy field, one by one we're beginning to get a handle on the

profits and resources — things we should have a handle

on. When we did that with natural gas, the profits to the

people of B.C. have been phenomenal.

Now let's not commit ourselves to a refinery, but let's not

be so timid that we shrink back from something which may give

us a handle whereby we can regulate and see what's going on in

the international oil fraternity.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let's find out whether or not B.C.

forever should be a cup to be milked by the international

companies, or whether for once we might not be a leader in the

world economy and show how in a public field we can in a small

way get a handle on something so that we can regulate the

profits that are pouring out of this province at the present

time to the international oil companies.

We're not afraid to take on that kind of a task.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, God, what did I say? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If the engineering is right, if the

market studies are right, if the supply studies are right, if

the environmental studies are right, why shouldn't we have

faith in this province?

[ Page 2685 ]

MR. SMITH: I just want to pursue this point one step

further.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has got the cart

before the horse again. He's talking about the refinement of a

product we do not presently have available to us in the

Province of British Columbia in a quantity that will in any way

provide stock for our new refinery.

So, Mr. Attorney-General, if you are really concerned

about energy requirements and the production of new energy

sources in this Province of British Columbia, for goodness'

sake concentrate on the end of the business where that

production will come from. Basically it starts with exploration

in the fields where we have some reason to believe we have

undiscovered sources of both natural gas and oil.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We are doing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are not.

MR. SMITH: You're not. The exploration business has been a

disaster in British Columbia in the last two years, and

particularly this last year. You can look at some of the

figures about the number of companies and their oil rigs in the

field last year; but it is a known, fact that in northeastern

British Columbia, where you have the most expectation of

success, exploration has steadily decreased in the last two

years, and the prospects for another year are not good at the

present time unless we can somehow provide some assurance to

exploration companies that the money that is required, if and

when they find new product, will at least be available to them

in terms of a better wellhead price for whatever product they

find, either gas or oil.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I will try to stay in

order, because I am sure that you would want this committee to

be functioning properly. This vote deals with energy resources,

management, and regulation of energy utilities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has nothing to do with a

refinery.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That Member was out of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. And I just want to explain to you just

how far out of order he really was. In the matter of energy resource management,

I want to compliment the Premier on his decision to go to Britain. In the difficult

times which that nation is facing it is becoming quite clear that the one product

they have to export for much-needed currency is the skill of their petroleum

technologists.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If the Premier can go to Britain and

bring back some of the technologists that they have available

in that country to assist us in the dilemma we face, then his

trip will be worthwhile.

I think the Premier might also get a look to see what

happens when a nation descends into socialism. That would be

worthwhile, too, but that would be a spin-off. As the

Attorney-General said, if he does that, he would be

milking the cup dry.

But, Mr. Chairman, you recognize the importance of this

matter of energy resource management when it is realized that

the one petroleum resource we have in the form of natural gas

is now recognized as having greater value when used for other

purposes than heating of facilities, as gas, and I refer to the

use of gas in the petrochemical industries.

Studies in the Province of Alberta make it clear that

natural gas at $1.78 per 1,000 cubic feet can be worth $3.65

per 1,000 cubic feet when it is moved into the petrochemical

field. I think the time is long past when we can simply use gas

for its obvious purpose. We must be seeking out other

opportunities.

The B.C. Energy Commission can assist us in this. I had

occasion to pay a compliment to the commission the other day

and I do so again today. The hearings that are going on in

Vancouver right now — they are still on today —

are, I think, an example of what the commission is doing for

the people of British Columbia and for the private companies

and for B.C. Petroleum Corp. as well.

Some two weeks or so ago we read in the paper the reports of the

study that was produced by the staff of the B.C. Energy Commission.

This was in advance of their hearings. Many people looked at that as

being an indication of what the B.C. Energy Commission's staff wants to

do and what therefore would most likely be the commission decision at

the end of these hearings. But that is not the case.

I had occasion to look into this matter and I must

compliment the commission for making this basic decision. Their

staff looked at the particular problem and came to certain

conclusions. Before embarking upon these hearings the

commission decided that it should make its own staff report

available to those contending organizations that would be

coming before the hearings so that the B.C. Energy Commission

staff approach to the problem could be the subject of

discussion and debate in the course of these hearings. As a

result the private companies and B.C. Petroleum Corp. have had

the opportunity to come before this commission and make their

own

[ Page 2686 ]

presentation, at the same time responding to and, if

necessary, rebutting some of the propositions that have been

put up by the B.C. Energy Commission staff.

I think this is a new approach to this problem. I compliment

Dr. Thompson and his commission for taking this attitude on

such an important matter. I have had occasion to talk to

counsel for the commission, who is at these hearings. He has

indicated that the private companies are making good

submissions and that the B.C. Petroleum Corp. Is being

subjected to close and extensive cross- examination on the

brief that they have presented and the position that the Crown

corporation has taken. This is what the commission is for and

we should applaud it for taking this approach.

As I have said before, I would only hope that the

Attorney-General could discuss with the commission and

with the other members of cabinet the role that the commission

should play with regard to the major Crown corporation —

British Columbia Hydro. I think it would be a major step

forward in resource management in British Columbia if this

commission, with the openness that it has displayed, takes a

good look at what Hydro is doing. I'm sure that the

Attorney-General would agree with that.

In this way, if we allow this commission the full

flexibility that the Act permits, I think we can still allow

the criticism and concerns that comes from the private sector

about the petroleum corporation and about B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out

that they are independent. For example, in electricity

generation and consumption predictions — which are

difficult — the commission's predictions vary to some

extent with those of B.C. Hydro. That's good. That's the way

you sort things out. They should have that independent approach

and I think they do. I move the question be put.

(Laughter.)

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

Chairman....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Hon.

Attorney-General proposed a motion which was a closure

motion and it must be put without debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair didn't accept the motion.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) in

commending the B.C. Energy Commission on the work that they are

doing....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You can't. He left you.

MR. GIBSON: We are a wide and expansive group, Mr. Premier...and the data base that they have provided to the people

of British Columbia and to the government in making judgments

on energy questions.

I want to ask the Attorney-General to what extent the

government is prepared to go along with some of their, in my

view, very wise assessments to date. For example, with this

Minister responsible for energy, a couple of weeks ago the head

of the B.C. Energy Commission espoused the principle that

domestic natural gas, produced and sold within the boundaries

of British Columbia, should in the fullness of time — and

I read into the newspaper report a fairly short period of time

— be sold on a price of energy equivalents. That is what

I read in the newspaper as being the words of the head of the

B.C. Energy Commission. I support that hypothesis.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Wait a minute. That is a matter of

public policy — whether we have a two-price system

and give all the consumers a break.

MR. GIBSON: I agree it's a matter of public policy. I'm

asking the Attorney-General what the public policy is.

I'm asking him whether the public policy is one that encourages

the waste of a diminishing...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, what a silly question to ask for a

people's government.

MR. GIBSON: ...natural asset by holding it at an

artificially low price, or whether the public policy, which he

is administering, is one of charging the proper price, and

helping people who can't pay that price by cushioning it. I'm

asking him if that's public policy, because that's what I think

it should be. That's the first question.

My second question is in the general work of the energy

commissioners. What special studies do they have planned for

this year — beyond the current study that's going on in

the proper field pricing of old and new natural gas? I ask this

out of not just curiosity, but a hope that they will be....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're doing propane. They're also

working on updating continuously their survey of energy

resources in B.C.

MR. GIBSON: Now a point that was mentioned earlier on was

the propriety and, in my view, the necessity of the B.C. Energy

Commission having an oversight role with respect to B.C.

Hydro.

You can't talk about energy in this province, Mr.

[ Page 2687 ]

Attorney-General, without talking about B.C. Hydro.

They distribute and produce an enormous amount of energy, some

in the form of natural gas, some in the form of electricity.

The energy commission has some say over their policies with

respect to the wholesale price of natural gas, but beyond that,

B.C. Hydro's on its own. On the electrical side, they're

entirely on their own. As the Premier said, earlier on in

debate in this House, one of the most important things about

the energy commission is that it has let the sunshine in on the

regulation of natural gas, and it has provided this data base

for the people of British Columbia. We need the same thing with

respect to B.C. Hydro. We do, Mr. Minister. If you were on the

board, perhaps not. But at the moment we do. You agree with

that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the clock. I must report to the Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll continue

tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada