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 he rejects and won't assign into any category could be 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.