CONTENTS

Legal Services Commission Act (Bill 96). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 2689

Coroners Act (Bill 87). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 2689

Hospital Amendment Act (Bill 91). Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 2689

Oral Questions

Publication of NDP pamphlet. Mr. Bennett — 2689

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

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

Review of grazing lease. Mrs. Jordan — 2691

Confidentiality of tax information. Mr. Phillips — 2691

Title of Minister Without Portfolio. Mr. Fraser — 2691

Hard-rock drilling decline. Mr. Gibson — 2691

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

Advertisement for legal officer. Mr. Curtis — 2692

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

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

Routine proceedings

Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 24). Committee, report and third reading — 2693

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 25). Committee stage.

On section 1. Mr. Richter — 2694

Report and third reading — 2705

Fisheries Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 70). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Radford — 2705

Personal Information Reporting Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 79). Second reading. Hon. Ms. Young — 2707

Credit Unions Act (Bill 82). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2711

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates On vote 28. Mr. Gibson — 2711

On vote 29. Mr. McClelland — 2722

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Monsieur l'Orateur, je suis enchanté à offrir un bienvenu très chaud à nos bons amis de France, Monsieur Jean Trocmé, the commercial counsellor at Ottawa, Monsieur Louis-Jean L'Helias, the French trade commissioner, and our good friend Monsieur Galabru, who is the French consul-general in Vancouver.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Monsieur le Président, pour le parti officiel d'opposition ça me fait beaucoup de plaisir aussi d'avoir l'occasion cet après-midi de vous souhaiter bienvenu à notre assemblée.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House at its opening this morning. I do not know if it was noted, but I think I can speak for the women Members of the assembly to welcome and to express our delight in seeing Mrs. Evelyn Miller as a Clerk of this House. This is a first.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery today of 35 students now and 35 at 3 o'clock from Hansworth School in North Vancouver, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Peterson. I ask the House to make them welcome.

M R. C. S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of senior citizens from North Vancouver who are seated in the Members' gallery this afternoon.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from the Kengard School in the Nicola Valley at Merritt. I think we owe them a fair debt of gratitude, after the dull weather we had yesterday, to see this fine Nicola Valley sunshine they brought with them.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Gooden from Salmon Arm. Mr. Gooden is the secretary-treasurer of the Shuswap School District. I would like the House to welcome them to Victoria.

Introduction of bills.

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legal Services Commission Act.

Bill 96 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CORONERS ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 87, Coroners Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hospital Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 91 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

PUBLICATION OF NDP PAMPHLET

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Premier and Minister of Finance. I have in my hand a very glossy pamphlet entitled, "The New Financial Institution in British Columbia Designed to Serve The Needs Of People." I would like the Minister to inform the House as to what vote the pamphlet, published by the Queen's Printer, was passed under, and why it was distributed to the NDP convention before it was distributed to this House.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The second part of the statement is incorrect. It was not distributed at the NDP convention.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now get your facts straight. It was not distributed to the NDP convention.

MR. BENNETT: Was it available?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2690 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're getting yourself into another chicken-and-egg war.

MR. BENNETT: Was it available there?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't change your questions in mid-ditch. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it was done by the Queen's Printer, and I imagine the charges will be to the finance department.

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplementary, then. Would the Minister advise whether it is now the practice of the government that the costs of producing these pamphlets based on proposed legislation, which has not been approved or debated by this House, are to be placed on the shoulders of our taxpayers before it has been debated or discussed in the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows, the B.C. Central Credit Union is a proposed partner in the operation of the proposed legislation, and the material is prepared essentially for that information. If the Member is not in appreciation of the government's imaginative moves in the finance field, then let him vote against the legislation.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS
TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Education: subsequent to questions, some of which she answered and some she took on notice, may I ask the Minister whether she could file with House the criteria whereby her department established the size of the supplementary grants given to school districts this year? It would be useful to know, for example, why Surrey, with a school enrolment of 30,000, received a supplementary grant of $2.2 million, when Vancouver with a school enrolment of 70,000 received less than half that.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Yes, I'll be prepared to prepare that for you. It's complicated, but we'll see if we can prepare it in a form. You would like to have a copy of it.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMPLAINTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with regard to his statement that he is considering legislation which would ban lawyers, real estate salesmen and assessors from running for public office at the municipal level. In view of his statement that nine out of 10 complaints about possible conflicts of interest received in his office are false, could I ask the Minister: in the past year how many such complaints have been received, and of the complaints found to have substance, how many have been the subject of further action by the Minister?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): First of all, I didn't suggest that I would be banning lawyers or assessors especially from sitting on councils. What I did suggest was that if you were to ban real estate agents or people who are dealing in land, directly or indirectly, then you are also, if you carry that a little further, dealing with lawyers and the rest of the group who are on the periphery of that whole picture.

In regard to your second question about the number of complaints that I receive and the number that are valid, it is quite true that there are very few where, under the laws that exist today, any actual wrongdoing has been done. What I'm suggesting is that from a number of the complaints that I do receive, certainly from a moral point of view, I suppose you might say, wrongdoing may be being done or appears to be done. I'm suggesting that legislation will have to be changed to take care of the conflict of interest that does exist in this province, which is permitted through the Municipal Act at the present time.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

It's interesting that the word "moral" should creep in, since the Premier chastised me the other day for suggesting that the government should ever take a position on the morality in our community.

Anyway, has the Minister, on the matter of advertising your budget in the Georgia Straight — don't pretend you've forgotten — discussed this important issue with UBCM in order to seek some alternative way of approaching the difficulty other than taking this very drastic route of suggesting that certain selected people in society might not be able to run for municipal office?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have taken it up with UBCM last fall at their annual meeting and in the previous year at their annual meeting, asking for their suggestions as to what might or could be done to resolve the problem. UBCM is in agreement with me that the problem does exist, but they haven't produced an answer. It's not an easy answer to come up with, and that's why action wasn't taken two years ago, to be quite frank. There has to be action brought about very shortly in regard to this matter.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): It is on the same general subject, Mr. Speaker, with your

[ Page 2691 ]

Is the Minister giving any consideration whatever to introducing similar restrictions as far as school boards are concerned in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, not at this time. However, we do find it practical to keep our changes correlated fairly well with Municipal Affairs. On this particular one I would have to take that as notice. No decision has been made.

REVIEW OF GRAZING LEASE

MRS. JORDON: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and it's with regard to lot 106 in the Oliver area in Myers Flat district — a grazing lease, the Minister will recall, which belongs to a viable unit and a family ranch — which he had out for tender and which we asked him to withdraw; and he has agreed. Now that the land is withdrawn from public tender and subject to review, would the Minister advise the House: (a) Who will be directing the review? (b) What departments will be consulted? (c) Has the family been notified that this land is not out for tender at this time and is subject to review?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Any land that is on a year-to-year tenure — it's clearly that, Mr. Speaker — is not a commitment in perpetuity, as the Hon. Member might suggest. The matter is being looked at with outside advice and departmental staff. It may well be that portions of land might be used differently than other portions.

MRS. JORDAN: In view of the fact that this land has been properly managed by the family involved for many years and there is, to my knowledge, no criticism on record from the grazing department or the agricultural department or their use, would the Minister give the House a commitment that when the correct usage of this land is decided by his authorities that family will have first opportunity to bid on leasing this land?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would have thought that so-called free-enterprisers would believe in competition.

MRS. JORDON: Would the Minister just answer the question and keep his bogeyman socialism out of people's affairs? This is a family agricultural unit, and your hang-up on socialism is destroying it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX INFORMATION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Are there any special precautions taken to keep confidential information which is filed both with the capital tax employment act and the Logging Tax Act confidential? How is it distributed? Do the civil servants handling this information take any special oath to do with the capital tax employment Act and the Logging Tax Act? I have reason to believe that some of this confidential information is not being treated with the confidentiality that it should be. I'd just like the Minister of Finance to inform the House what is....

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

TITLE OF
MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): There's a question to the Premier as president of the executive council. Can he advise the House what authority the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) still has, apparently, to issue press releases saying the following: "Alf Nunweiler, Minister for Northern Affairs said today..." — and it goes on. In other words, he calls himself the "Minister of Northern Affairs," and I'd like to know on what authority can he use this title.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, if you'll pass it over to me I'll take it as notice.

HARD-ROCK DRILLING DECLINE

MR. GIBSON: I have a question to ask the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Is the Minister aware that there's been a drop of 99 per cent in exploratory drilling in British Columbia in the first quarter, year over year?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, no! For minerals, Mr. Minister, for hard-rock mineral in the first quarter...throwing many people out of work, when it's been going up in the rest of Canada. Would the Minister agree that this might have some slight connection with government policy?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): In the first place I've got no knowledge of your figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 2692 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can send that over to me. In the second place, if it is true, I don't think it's government policy that's causing it.

MR. GIBSON: Just for the Minister's information, Mr. Speaker, it's an official report of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, but I'll send him a copy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary. May I ask the Minister whether he'll take steps to check with his staff as to why they're not bringing forward to his attention reports of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, as well as the daily press?

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I spend so much time in the House trying to keep up with the rest of you fellows that I haven't got time to even talk to my staff. (Laughter.)

SERPENTINE-NICOMEKL
FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I wonder if the Minister could advise the House when the Environment and Land Use Committee or the Land Commission, or both, might act on a request from the Municipality of Surrey and the diking commission there to have a special study done for drainage and flood-control programmes in the Serpentine-Nicomekl area?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, there have been numerous studies in the Serpentine-Nicomekl, and these have been underway over the last couple of years, so the Member would have to clarify his question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, since the last study turned down any possibility of cost sharing, the municipality asked the Land Commission if it would do a special study. The Environment and Land Use Committee has apparently stepped in alongside of the Land Commission, and has agreed to do a new study with the view of getting something done to protect that farmland from ruination.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As the Member is no doubt aware, there are federal formulas with respect to diking arrangements.

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Under those formulas, the Serpentine-Nicomekl would not have qualified, so the group is looking at the prospects of a modified capital cost arrangement which would meet within the formula. There's no report yet.

ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL OFFICER

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Attorney-General. Some weeks ago I asked the Minister if he would investigate an advertisement which had appeared for his department concerning a legal officer. That was competition No. 75-1290, seeking a qualified person with recognized Bachelor of Laws degree and preferably one year's experience in criminal law. The salary seemed inordinately high — $24,290 to $30,900. The Minister undertook to check into it. To my knowledge — I don't believe I've missed any question periods — he has not done so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the answer with me today. I'll get that.

PROTECTION OF FLOOR
DURING EAST WING RENOVATION

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Public Works regarding the historical and very valuable tiled floor in the east wing of this building which is being renovated: could the Minister advise the House why proper care and attention have not been adhered to to protect this flooring during this period of renovation? I've been in on several occasions. There are a few four-by-eight sheets lying around. In the main, this floor is being subject to falling plaster being grated into the flooring from workmen's boots, scaffolding, ladders and every other form of abuse. Would the Minister please advise why this abuse has taken place, and what he's prepared to do about it?

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, could I make a similar speech in reply?

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You know, for 20 years this building fell down about your ears. There was plastic up in the attic, windows boarded up, plastic over the skylights — and she asks a question like that. Certainly it's being looked after!

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary?

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

Before we proceed, I wanted to know the opinion

[ Page 2693 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry, I'd better give it in detail — some Members were not here this morning. The request was made by BCTV to tape a portion of the proceedings of the House tomorrow. I intimated to them that I would have to obtain the unanimous leave of the House in view of the fact that we have a report that indicates some misgivings about broadcasting publicly by this method without thereby having problems under the Bill of Rights. Therefore the question is: is there unanimous leave to permit any broadcasting until the rules are changed? Shall leave be granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: What portion is it?

MR. SPEAKER: I think they wanted the question period tomorrow. But if I hear any dissent at this time, I'm certainly not going to let them proceed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarification, presumably it's not just for BCTV, but for both networks or any other...?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately they were the only ones who requested that privilege. As I said, it means the lights are on for 15 minutes. It means that every Member has to be concerned about what he says in this House, and the effect of it legally.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: All right. I think I should warn you, in view of the misgivings shown by several Members the other day about the release of tapes from Hansard; so I think one should make a considered judgment on it. If you want to wait until 6 o'clock to think about it further....

I hear some noes from over here.

MR. WALLACE: Just on a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, you mentioned any segment of the proceedings to be televised by BCTV, and that no one else had asked. What happens if we give permission to BCTV and tomorrow or next week...? Is it to be a very arbitrary thing where the House is asked each time for leave or not?

MR. SPEAKER: I think what they were doing was asking for leave as an experiment to see whether they could film it with the equipment they have. So it was in the nature of an experiment.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, even though it would be a decided advantage for government to have this happen, I think that it is too sketchy for us to make any decision on. But it would be to our advantage, obviously.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think what is really needed is a committee again to sit on the question of whether it can work, and also to make recommendations with regard now to the report received which was tabled in this House by Dr. McWhinney on the whole subject of parliamentary immunity and broadcasting. But if I hear any noes — and I seem to hear several — I will certainly not advise them that consent has been given. Is there unanimous consent?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there isn't. So I will have to advise them. In the meantime, I hope somebody will take the initiative and do something about the whole problem.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 24.

SUCCESSION DUTY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. D. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 2694 ]

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

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER
AUTHORITY (1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

On section 1.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Finance and Premier, fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro, as I understand from the earlier debate, the amount in this bill has already been committed for projects that have already been finalized. I would assume from that, then, that a portion of this money would be applicable to the 500-kVline to run from Nicola to the Kootenays.

Now my question is this. The shortest distance between two points would be a straight line. The proposed route of this line will run from the northwest corner of my constituency to the southeast corner, which is anything but a straight line, and through a considerable amount of improved property.

I know it is difficult sometimes to keep these high-tension lines on Crown land and not interfere with private land, and I also realize, if the government is attempting to establish a utility corridor, that you can't establish a number of utility corridors, and that West Kootenay Power and Light presently do have a line running between Oliver and Bonnington Falls.

My question is: will the land use commission and the environment and land use secretariat have any jurisdiction in designating where this particular high voltage line will be located? Also, many people who own small properties are going to find a high-tension line crossing their property, which will not be to their advantage, and I am getting a considerable number of complaints from my constituents in regard to this matter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am advised that the Environment and Land Use Committee does review these. I would suggest that if you are getting complaints, you direct them to the committee. The Minister on the committee also serves on the Hydro board — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). The Minister has advised me that he will check and see what status this project is with the committee.

MR. RICHTER: Just a short response to that. I have already done this, Mr. Premier. I'm happy I was on the right track.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, during the course of an earlier debate we discussed the proposed prospectus for a $125 million borrowing by B.C. Hydro. I understand that the amount of the borrowing has been increased to $150 million and that the sale of those bonds is to be announced this week.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Already sold. Could the Minister advise the rate of interest on those bonds?

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to inquire of the Minister where we're going ahead and putting Hydro projects for which this borrowing is to pay.... I'd like to know what the government's attitude is towards hiring policies on these projects. I've had several complaints in my riding that local residents are unable to obtain jobs in the area, even when these residents are qualified. So I contacted in this particular project on Site 1 the prime contractor, which is Dillingham Corp. The prime contractor said: "Yes, we're most happy to hire local people. As a matter of fact, we would rather hire local people because then we're not faced with housing transients when they come into the area and work. But we have a union contract. When we put out a call for an individual, we have to hire whomever the union gives us."

The union has a waiting list; we'll say it's for engineers. If the union has engineers who are waiting for a job, regardless of whether they live on Vancouver Island or Kelsey Bay or Cranbrook, these people have to be brought into the area. The policy of Hydro, I understand, written in the contract with Dillingham, is to ask the prime contractor to hire local people where possible, where they're qualified; it's part of the procedure. But we run into the union problem where the union wants to bring in people from outside.

I'd like to know what the policy of government is. Who's running the show? Who's going to get preference — local people or people from outside?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, before we became the government this was a chronic problem in projects related to Hydro and other Crown corporation construction. So when this government came to office, we passed the Public Works Fair Employment Act. It was the first time in history that this province allowed the Crown corporations, when directly involved in construction, to hire local people. This was never permitted under the existing union-Crown corporation contracts before. It was this government that opened it up to allow local people to be employed; that's a matter of record. I think, Mr.

[ Page 2695 ]

I want to thank the Member for giving me the opportunity of pointing out to the people of this province that the first break on this impasse came through the Public Works Fair Employment Act introduced by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

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

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly resent, as usual, the Minister of Finance trying to twist the situation around. I would like to inform him that the contract which was signed between B.C. Hydro and not one contractor but all of the contractors on the Peace River power dam, a project that lasted for some 10 years, never had one minute of labour problems because it was a first for the previous administration — the best contract. It is one that has been followed on the Mica project — the greatest legislation, the greatest and hugest labour contract and the greatest project ever taken on before in the history of British Columbia, a project which was engineered by Hydro under the previous administration.

I want to say that it had a devil of a lot better record of having no strikes than anything this government has engineered or tried to engineer. The Premier gets up and tries to twist the situation all around. They brought in the Public Works Fair Employment Act and then the next year they changed it because we told them when they brought in that legislation that it was unworkable legislation. Next year they backtracked again as usual and did exactly what we suggested they do when they brought the labour legislation in. But, oh, the Premier has got to get up and twist everything all around.

I asked a simple question, a question which concerns constituents in my riding. I wanted a straightforward answer, but the Premier had to get up and try and twist it all around and make cheap political hay out of a very touchy situation, which is labour in this province.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the sooner that Premier and that Minister of Labour take cheap politics out of the labour situation, the better off British Columbia will be! You are trying to polarize labour against management. You've worked it time and time again in this province since you became government. The people in this province are getting sick and tired.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Could you speak up a bit? We can't hear you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Back to my original question. We have got to find out which contract is going to take precedence. In the contract that B.C. Hydro has with Dillingham Corp., which is the prime contractor, it is written in the contract that the prime contractor shall hire local people where feasible and possible. Dillingham would like to hire local people. Which contract has the precedence — the contract that B.C. Hydro has with Dillingham saying that you shall hire local people, or the union contract? That's all I want to know. Local people want these jobs. I don't want you to get up and be political.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay.

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

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

MR. PHILLIPS: You are supposed to be the man concerned with little people. These are little people who work in that area, who are available to do that job. They live there and in many cases will do a better job than some single person coming in from outside, living in barracks, as it were. These people are not being given the opportunity to work on this project in their own area. I want to know what your stand is on it.

I don't just have one complaint. Do you want me to read you the letters? I don't want to take up the time of the House to read you the letters.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: But I do want an answer.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't be political!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhh! You tell me not to be political after all that political claptrap about the former government having labour peace and never polarizing management against labour! Mr. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't get political!

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

[ Page 2696 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: You started it!

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: I gave you the simple answer: prior to the passing of the Public Works Fair Employment Act, no Crown corporation had the right....

You don't like it. You don't like the answer. I can't change the facts. If you don't like the answer, there is nothing I can do for you.

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

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

MR. PHILLIPS: You are not giving me any answer. The Public Works Fair Employment Act has absolutely nothing to do with it.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Nothing at all!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River wait for his turn again, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the facts are that if the contractor has a contract with the union — that is, an agreement between the contractor and the union which permits the union to do the hiring — there is nothing that we can do about that contract between a private employer and the union. Okay?

Now if that is the contract that the employer has signed between the unions and himself, that is a matter between those two parties. Beyond that, Mr. Member, there was no provision in the original contracts on Mica, which called for no strike on Mica for a 10-year period, to include the hiring of local help. One of the conditions of getting the 10-year, no-strike contract was an absolute, by the former government to the unions, that the hiring would be done by the unions. That's a fact. Two answers for you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to tell the Premier that he has been ill-advised by the Minister of Labour that the Public Works Fair Employment Act has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

The Premier again has tried to twist the situation around. What I am asking is what has precedence: the contract that Hydro has with the prime contractor or the contractor's contract with the union. Now which is it? Hydro says that Dillingham Corp., in this case, shall hire local people. Certainly the union could hire local people. In some instances, they might have to sell them memberships. We are talking about the operating engineers at the present time.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it wouldn't be the IWA. It would be the operating engineers, because it is driving Caterpillars and wheel vehicles, et cetera.

Mr. Minister of Finance, all I want to know is which is the precedent: the contract that Hydro has with the contractor or the other one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you please send over the two contracts and we'll have the Labour department rule on it? I can't give you an answer without knowing....

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, please get the exact information before we can give you.... Who is it between? What project? What construction company? We need that information to give this to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I told you. It's between British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Dillingham Corp.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: The project is getting ready for clearing the area for Site 1, clearing the trees, building the roads, getting ready to set up the camp; it's the No. 1 project. I'll find out the number of the project if you want me to; I'll get you the number of the project.

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

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): The present question is whether this House should authorize $750 million worth of increased borrowing authority by B.C. Hydro. The principle is one that goes well beyond that. B.C. Hydro will be, according to its most recent prospectus, spending $3.3 billion in capital expenditures over the next two years. One of the greatest difficulties this House has in judging that kind of thing is in assessing the long-range plans of an enormous corporation like B.C. Hydro which has the benefit of all kinds of internal staff studies and all kinds of information that we do not have. One of the

[ Page 2697 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has already canvassed this particular argument. We had a lengthy debate about it in the House. I think you may have been absent.

MR. GIBSON: No, I am aware that it was canvassed. I wasn't 100 per cent satisfied with the answer at that time, Mr. Premier. I want to put the argument to you once more and suggest to you that this House in dealing with these kinds of enormous sums of money down the distant future has to have the benefit of impartial, independent advice with hearings held out in the open and not decisions made in the secrecy of the board rooms of B.C. Hydro, which is an impenetrable screen beyond which this Legislature cannot get. So I ask the Premier once again, through you, Mr. Chairman, to at least consider and to tell this House he will consider putting B.C. Hydro under the overview of the B.C. Energy Commission.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: "What else is the energy commission for?" as the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) says.

In his remarks a few days ago while still on committee stage of this bill, the Premier made reference to studies currently being done on Hat Creek coal. I want to ask him a simple question: will those studies currently being done on Hat Creek coal be made public?

The next question I have for him is which load factor is he using in his capital cost projections. Is he using the B.C. Hydro load factor of, I think, 9.6 to 10 per cent growth per annum, or is he using the B.C. Energy Commission growth in load factor which is somewhat lower? The Premier referred to this before in debate but I was not clear at that time which figure he is using in his capital cost calculations.

Next and related to natural gas; I understand it has been a general policy adopted by B.C. Hydro that the Burrard thermal unit will, where possible, not burn natural gas.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's a best-effort situation at the moment. I would like to ask the Premier if we can't have a guarantee that that simply won't be used. Just make that a blanket statement. I think it would be a good thing if policy could be nailed down....

HON. MR. BARRETT: A guarantee that what?

MR. GIBSON: A guarantee that natural gas will henceforth not be burned in the Burrard thermal unit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, I would ask the Hon. Member to wait for his answers until he takes his seat rather than asking the Premier to answer from his seat.

MR. GIBSON: I am not asking him to answer them, Mr. Chairman. He seems to be listening for the questions. I was doing my best to make it clear.

The next representation I would make relates to the revenue available to B.C. Hydro from natural gas sales and therefore, at least, the slight reduction in the necessity of externally found capital funds. I submit to him that we have in this province at the moment a serious discrimination between people who installed in their homes heating facilities that burn oil as opposed to natural gas. The cost of oil has recently gone up to such an extent that those people are now paying twice or three times as much for an equal amount of heat as people buying natural gas.

It's difficult to roll back the past and to change too quickly the prices that are being paid by people who installed natural gas heating equipment based on undertakings by B.C. Hydro in their advertising that this was the lowest cost fuel, and that the price hadn't changed for many years. A lot of people have put in gas equipment on that basis.

I would ask the Premier if B.C. Hydro, in its financial thinking in the future, could not find some way of metering, find some way of imposing a tariff so that, in terms of new uses, new installation of gas equipment as opposed to oil equipment, the energy costs between these two kinds of things be equalized so that henceforth the person using oil is no longer heavily penalized as compared to the person who's using gas, while at the same time we are following bad conservation practices in terms of pricing.

Just to wind up on that particular sector — in discussing this again the other day, the Premier said that if we sold 100 per cent of our gas in British Columbia there would be no doubt but what we'd be up to energy-equivalent pricing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: So I say that the principle is established, that the principle is right, and, at least in new uses, it ought to be brought into operation as quickly as possible.

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

[ Page 2698 ]

The growth figures are B.C. Hydro's projection figures. I can't give a guarantee on non-use of gas. We inherited an emergency sharing-of-electricity programme that was completed by B.C. Hydro before we were in, and it may cause us to use natural gas on occasion to meet that agreement.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're burning oil there now, but it may cause.... There was a bunker C shortage last year, you recall. Industry was quite concerned. If that comes about, then we have to switch to natural gas, and I can't give a guarantee that we won't use it. It's not a good idea, but we can't give a guarantee.

Domestic prices on natural gas are still low. I said the government policy was to provide natural gas at lower cost because we had a commitment to export almost 70 per cent of our natural gas production.

I appreciate the logic of your argument, Mr. Member; I really do. It's something to consider. I'm not saying we're going to do it. It's something to consider about new gas. But because of the peculiar situation we're in in terms of selling gas at a cheap price to industrial competitors, it would be self-defeating for us to consider charging our own manufacturers an increased natural gas price over what our own competitors get south of the border.

You accept, and I accept, the logic of an equivalent BTU price. I noticed in this morning's paper there's an industry spokesman saying the same thing: pricing should be on equivalent BTUs. You agree to it; I agree to it; industry agrees to it; but the federal government doesn't. Now you figure that one out.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they have the authority through the National Energy Board to set the price for natural gas at the border to go to the United States. That's where we've had the trouble all along.

MR. GIBSON: We are talking about domestic gas.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I remember when we had a debate in here — it was when the five of you were together, and one of the five was making the very strong point that B.C. should set the price of natural gas to American customers on its own. He made a heck of a good half-hour speech, only to be interrupted by some unfortunate questioner saying: "Who has the authority to do that?" The answer came back from your own ranks, decimated as they are now but not then, saying: "Why that's federal."

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Inside B.C. you want us to extend the concept of equivalent BTU inside B.C., and have the anomalous situation of the Government of British Columbia charging the equivalent of $2 per 1,000 cubic feet while the federal government orders us to sell it to the Americans at $1.60 by November 1.

MR. GIBSON: In harmony with the export.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In harmony? There's no harmony with logic in the federal government. Can you see the paradoxical situation of us selling natural gas, low equivalent BTU, at $2 per 1,000 cubic feet and the federal government telling us to sell it to the Americans at $1.60? And you belong to the same party!

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): The provincial Liberals flopped out on Sunday. There's no harmony in the federal Liberals.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I guess this is a further manifestation of the break within the Liberal Party.

The problem with you, Mr. Member, is you arrived at this House with logic on your side, and that has never been an impediment to the federal Liberal government.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have the foolish situation of the federal government ordering us to sell our natural gas at $1.60 to the Americans.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: I asked for $2, and if I couldn't get it right away, I wanted it in stages.

You talk about conservation policies, and you make a case for conservation which I agree with, only to have the federal government timorously go down to Washington, D.C., wring their hands and apologize for increases in natural gas costs.

Regretfully I must share with you the unfortunate use of words by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) when he moved the price of natural gas up from 32 cents to 57 cents.

[ Page 2699 ]

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

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. I'm not happy with the price. We forced an increase from $1 in two stages up to $1.60. But everybody knows that that Member's point is valid. It should be the BTU equivalent right now, and the minimum BTU equivalent by all measures is $2 per 1,000 cubic feet. We should be getting $2 per 1,000 cubic feet today. The only reason we are not getting it is because there is a timid federal Liberal government that doesn't have the nerve or the purpose to stand up in this country and say: "If we are going to sell those resources, then we demand a major, significant increase in that price to the equivalent BTU price as so ably described in the British Columbia House by the Liberal Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)."

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send them a bill for difference? We're losing, Mr. Member, tens of millions of dollars that the municipalities could have.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly it was a victory. They were going to keep them pegged at a dollar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You recall, Mr. Chairman, when I left to go back to Victoria, it was the official opposition and the Liberal counterparts, before they were independents, and the other odds and sods down the end there all saying: "Oh, you won't get anything in Ottawa." Go back and read your Hansard statements.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't you comment, Mr. Member. You said that the federal government wouldn't allow us anything, and that the scheme would never work and the municipalities would never see a dime. Those were your statements. Well, we have to go and tell every municipality how much money they are getting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They should; that's right. "You are going to get a third of nothing."

Now we had moderate success against a stubborn, unthinking, centralist Liberal administration that has a paternalistic attitude to the provinces, especially British Columbia, and is forcing us to sell our gas cheaper to the Americans than what Americans charge themselves in their own jurisdiction.

Now, you tell me, Mr. Member, what influence you have with the federal Prime Minister. If the story gets out that they are forcing us, as you've pointed out, to sell this gas at this price, they could be in trouble politically. Or would they say: "We don't want to offend our American customers." Whose gas is it? Is it the Americans or ours?

You come into this House and you ask us to consider a BTU equivalent policy for new gas users in British Columbia, and I say: "I'll look at that." My challenge back to you is: how can I logically extend that to British Columbians and ask them to pay the BTU equivalent when the federal government prohibits us from applying the same principle to the Americans who buy our gas?

Now if you can rationalize that, you can prove once and for all why you are a Liberal, because only the Liberals could have that kind of schizophrenic policy and a policy in sum total that means, "Sock it to the British Columbia users but go easy with the Americans." That's what it really comes to.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: We name the provincial price, and you're suggesting to us that we should use the BTU equivalent for the British Columbia consumers when we can't ask the BTU price for 70 per cent of our gas which is sold to the United States? Well, that has got to be the dumbest policy I've ever heard. Punish the British Columbians because the federal government is forcing us to sell gas cheap to the Americans.

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

[ Page 2700 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, bank it through a little more. If I took your advice, with the losses you've had recently, I wouldn't have very much left at all.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, when there is only one of you in a room you're bound to get a unanimous vote. In your case there is only two of you. Even if you lose him you've got 50 per cent of the support that's left.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has his caucus support.

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

So, Mr. Member, what you are saying is logical and in principle is right, but will not be the policy of this government because, in effect, you punish the British Columbia consumer and he has to pay the difference for what the federal government forces us to sell to the Americans.

I'm not going to be a party to that; there's no way I would have anything to do with that. That's Liberal policy: "Suffer, ye poor Canadians, while we give everything to the Americans." That's kind of dumb.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano on a brief follow-up question. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I should ask a question because the Premier spent a lot of time answering a question I didn't ask. (Laughter.) I guess he enjoys any opportunity to go after the federal government.

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

MR. GIBSON: The Premier said, for the benefit of Hansard, that it grieves him to do it, but the smile on his fact is something beatific to behold. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If only I could enjoy things that grieve me so much!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't my suggestion, and it's not the suggestion of my party, that the domestic price of natural gas in British Columbia should rise beyond the export price. It should not rise that far, nor should it rise that quickly.

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

MR. GIBSON: That's the goal, Mr. Premier, that we all have for export. I'm not suggesting that we reach that goal domestically before we reach it on the export side.

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now.

MR. GIBSON: Very quickly. In the hope that that is clarified a little bit, Mr. Chairman.... I don't want to spend any more time on that.

Since the Premier answered a question I didn't ask, I would ask him also to answer a question I did ask and comment briefly upon the B.C. Energy Commission and the desirability of B.C. Hydro falling under their purview.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that was, as I said, thoroughly canvassed in an earlier debate. I said it was something we would certainly look at.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I stand in my place to offer a few comments and to correct a couple of statements the Premier made as interjections while he was speaking about this matter of the price of natural gas. I'd like to say for the record and to recall to the Premier's mind that at no time have I ever suggested that the price of natural gas that we sold on the export market was what it should be — that it was worth more on an equivalent basis. We quarreled on methods you used to accomplish your ends — that was all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: I had always suggested that it was a matter that could have been negotiated with the National Energy Board on the existing basis without setting up the B.C. Petroleum Corp. The means of coming to a solution to the problem we disagree on, but the fact of the matter is this: I am as aware as you are that natural gas as a fuel, and a premium fuel, is underpriced today according to equivalent heat factors from other sources. Let's not argue about that.

I feel that it would be a mistake to punish British Columbians and charge them excess prices for the consumption of natural gas until such time as the export market, which consumes 70 per cent of our production, pays the price that it should on an equivalent basis. But I say this to the Premier: All of the gas production in British Columbia comes from northeastern British Columbia, and it's substantial.

[ Page 2701 ]

There is a school of thought, as a matter of fact, in the North that, perhaps in order to illustrate the point, one of these days on a cold day they should crank down the wheel, shut it off for a period of 12 hours and see what really happens when people start to blow the whistle and hit the panic button. They don't feel that they're being treated fairly for a resource that comes out of the ground literally under their feet.

I'd like to spend just a few minutes on this matter that was raised by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — that is, employment of people on Site 1 by Dillingham Corp. I happen to know, Mr. Chairman, that before any work started on Site 1, but after the contract had been entered into between B.C. Hydro and Dillingham, a number of discussions took place concerning this whole matter of Manpower and the employment of local people. It was a matter that the Canada Manpower representatives, the Dillingham Corp., B.C. Hydro and, as a matter of fact, representatives of the unions discussed at some length. At that time there was a common agreement among those people, as I understand it, that wherever possible the prime contractor and any of their subcontractors would employ local people on Site 1. So let's not fog up the situation.

Before the project started there seemed to be common agreement among all those people who would be involved, including the unions, because of the contract signed between B.C. Hydro and Dillingham that local people would be employed wherever possible. But what has been reported to you this afternoon by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is exactly true. What was said a few months ago prior to the start of any construction and what is taking place now are different things. I think the Premier and the Minister of Labour should investigate it.

If people who met and discussed this problem in detail were serious and concerned before the contract was entered into or any construction started, they should be equally concerned now when we do have many people who are long-time residents of the northeastern part of British Columbia looking for jobs today and finding that the only jobs available go to people from outside of the area, some of them being shipped in and shuttled in and out, staying for two or three weeks and then leaving again. I would hope that the Minister and the Premier, as a director of Hydro, and as concerned about it as I am, would look into this problem. It seemed to be solved and now, all of a sudden, it has become a major problem in that area.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are most interested in the Premier's remarks, reinterpreting the victory he had in Ottawa some time ago. He came back claiming victory. It now appears it was not enough.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. We are delighted that he has accepted the same policy as the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and myself. But what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, with your permission and, of course....

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Simma Holt is going to get you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, we are thinking up a message to send to Simma. There is a bottle of Scotch for the best message to be thought up. There is a reward being offered and there is...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...an excellent suggestion coming from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) which is being considered.

Anyway, what I would like to do is ask the Premier about a question and about a problem which goes one step beyond that talked about by my colleague from North Vancouver. He talked about putting B.C. Hydro under the energy board for the purposes of having some rationalization of process here. The energy board should be in charge not only of gas but also of electricity and other things. There is some validity to that. I won't go into the Premier's comments on it.

What I would like to do, though, is go back to what the Premier said in this debate some days ago where he talked about 19 years from now and what could happen. He talked about the future in terms of 19 years, which is, of course, the length of time remaining for the first part. It could, of course, be reviewed as we all know. He talked about Hydro and Mica. He talked about Site 1. All of what he said was most interesting, an excellent speech. I would like to continue a little along that line.

I do not think that B.C. Hydro should, in isolation, determine growth rates for this province. I have looked at B.C. Hydro material in terms of their forecast. I have looked at them and I have seen this figure of over $3 billion, which is talked about for the

[ Page 2702 ]

If we are to have substantial growth in the Province of British Columbia, if we are to affect the growth rate of the Province of British Columbia, we are affecting the way of life of all British Columbians. We are affecting such things as the school system. I notice the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is looking quite attentive. We are creating strains upon our existing facilities. If we are talking about expansion, which is essentially what we talk about when we expand the energy base, expansion for future industry, we are talking about political decisions.

Certainly the energy board should provide us with studies and information. Certainly B.C. Hydro should, in its turn, provide us and the energy board with projections and information in terms of costs so that we can calculate, as people elected by the population of British Columbia, what the best course is for us.

Mr. Chairman, not all the consequences of growth are desirable. The Premier has made some most interesting statements outside the House on this. But he has never related this general question of growth to the question of energy. The link is direct and the link is causal. In this province if you have energy, you are going to have growth. The Premier made that perfectly clear when he talked about jobs going south because energy went south. He talked in his speech, again to quote him, about the low-cost industry for power in the south, south of the line, the capital investment that went to the United States. He talked about tens of thousands of jobs and industry that went south. He is perfectly right. In no way do I dispute that. What I am saying, however, is that if we are considering massive expansion of energy requirements in B.C., we are going to have to consider where we want to go and what the growth rate should be.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I will remain well within the rules of the House and quote from a study by Profs. Wright and Mansell of the department of economics of the University of Calgary.

It is entitled "The Impact of Large-Scale Investment in the Alberta Economy and the Role of Migration in the Adjustment Process" — a technical paper. The summery, or conclusion, is perhaps less technical and I will read just a short section from it.

"It follows that not all of the consequences of accelerated development are desirable, even when viewed solely from economic perspective. If this is the case, it seems that the appropriate role for provincial government would be to establish a target growth rate for the aggregate investment (based on economic, social and environmental considerations and determined by the political process) which it believes to be optimal. If, as is likely, this growth rate is less than the sum of the amounts that the private sector and the various levels of government would choose to invest if they were left to their own devices " — and I have underlined this in my text — "the provincial government would be required to constrain expansion. This kind of intervention in the market runs counter to the ideology and the temperament of many provincial politicians who have become accustomed to being evaluated positively if they encourage rather than regulate growth. Many will find it difficult to switch from the established role of being facilitators to become dampeners."

The Premier has, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, talked about this problem in very general terms, but we are now dealing with it in this three-line bill in very specific terms. We are dealing with future requirements of money for Hydro. We are dealing with, of course, putting this province further into debt in terms of the Hydro debts to Arab nations or other people who loan us money.

We are dealing also in terms of the likelihood of greater concentrations of people in the lower mainland, an area already as populated as Holland is on a square-mile basis. We are dealing with a number of very fundamental problems which come up under this type of bill.

We are dealing also with what the future holds in terms of British Columbia becoming a province of 10 million people, or British Columbia becoming a province with five million people, or even British Columbia remaining a province of something less than that.

It's a problem which has been met in some American jurisdictions — in particular, Oregon, where the decision was made not to simply allow hydro companies, such as B.C. Hydro, to constantly expand, constantly borrow money, constantly dam the rivers, constantly set up new thermal or nuclear generating plants so that, in turn, any private investment decision could find the energy that it needed to proceed.

It's a question that we have not faced up to in this province, and I raise it because I think it is tremendously important that we have in British Columbia some sort of discussion in terms of future growth and future energy requirements. I know the Premier agrees. The trouble is that we have had three

[ Page 2703 ]

Although it's correct to say that the B.C. Energy Commission should play a bigger role, it's not enough to say that. In addition to that, we are going to have to look at whether or not we want all these projections of private and public investment to materialize, and whether or not we want a growth rate which may prove in the long run to create substantial environmental, social or economic side effects which are adverse.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is fully aware, I believe, of the problem. However, he is charged with development. He is not charged with analyzing these optimal levels or where we should go or how we should be doing it. I don't think — and I differ with the Premier on this — that the Province of British Columbia has, for example, adequate hydro or even coal reserves for massive developments for new energy sources. I don't think we have it. Even if we did have them, I do not think it would be desirable to exploit them all.

I quote from The Vancouver Sun of January 24, 1974, a little over a year ago, where the Premier is quoted as saying at the provincial-federal energy conference:

"...that he has a personal bias against nuclear power generation because of the possible health hazard involved and that, in any case, B.C. can provide for all of its power needs by further utilization of its power-producing rivers. He went on to say that there is no need for B.C. to even consider, at this point, nuclear power generation."

I see the Premier applauding, and I respect his views. However, I do not accept his argument that we do have adequate rivers to constantly increase the supply of energy in the province. I think that we are going to run out of dammable rivers. I think that we are not going to be able to find sites for future hydro development, even though we may be able to find the money for it under bills such as this. If we are to have ever-increasing industrial development in the province of British Columbia, if we are to continue, as a provincial government and as a provincial administration, to constantly go out and make decisions which encourage population growth in British Columbia, if we are going to continue to do that, we inevitably will have to turn to thermal power, coal and nuclear power.

What we are doing in this particular bill is borrowing money for existing committed projects. But the future is important as well. It appears there is very little thought going into any development of plans for future growth in B.C. or future industrial development in B.C.

It's not enough, as that quotation I gave you indicated, to simply have politicians judged on the basis of whether or not they can encourage a higher rate of growth than previously. What is clearly desirable is looking for the optimal rate of growth or what we wish to have and then testing political programmes against whether or not they achieve that optimal rate or that optimal goal.

So I hope that the Premier, in discussing this, will say a few words about the planning or the discussions we can expect about a much more fundamental problem than whether or not the B.C. Energy Commission has a look at the work of B.C. Hydro. At the present time, B.C. Hydro is calling the shots in terms of growth in this province. B.C. Hydro and its planners — and I don't know how many they have in this area — are determining the future of this province. They are determining the congestion in this province; they are determining the population levels in this province; they are determining the industrial base of this province. These people, while excellent technical people, are not the ones who should be doing it. It should be determined by public debate, discussion and by the public itself, which of course involves the public's representatives in this House.

Let me quickly, Mr. Chairman, put in a quick word for an examination of nuclear power. The Premier and I differ on this but our disagreement is this: I think we should keep a watching brief and study it as closely as we can. I personally believe that unless we adopt the course of action I suggested a few moments ago and start deciding what our optimal goals are, we're inevitably going to be sucked into ever-increasing power developments, which means nuclear power. I cannot see us finding adequate sources of energy elsewhere. Hat Creek has been mentioned.

I would refer the Premier to an excellent issue of the B.C. Professional Engineer, one of our own publications. It deals with nuclear power and it deals with an alternative for British Columbia. The month of this issue is March of this year, volume 26, No. 3. The editorial is written by Dr. J.B. Warren, University of British Columbia, and it's a very thoughtful editorial.

He points out that to provide an overall view B.C. has nothing comparable to the research team in Quebec Hydro. There is not even an energy think-tank at the one and only engineering faculty in the B.C. universities. He points out that thermal power in actual fact will create more problems of radio-active waste than a nuclear plant. It sounds ironic, but it happens to be true. He talks of coal as being filthy to burn and making more radioactive fallout than any nuclear plant. It's filthy and clumsy to mine but it is available in B.C. in huge quantities. We may one day want it not only for metallurgical reduction but also for conversion to methanol or

[ Page 2704 ]

Dr. Warren, whose views I respect, goes on to talk about uranium as a potential source of energy and he talks about the Canadian development of the unique and safe CANDU system. Now those are his views. It may not be as safe as he thinks it is. Certainly I and the Premier are not technically qualified enough to judge Dr. Warren's views. But he thinks that clearly one day this may well be a substantial contribution to our B.C. baseload electricity as well as the source of energy required to convert coal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which Warren is that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's J.B. Warren, who is known to the Premier and to myself, but I'm sure — the Premier nods — that we both respect him for his considerable ability.

I am not here, because clearly I am not technically qualified enough, to advocate nuclear power to the Premier. I am only advocating this one thing: we keep abreast of developments in nuclear technology because, unless we do, we can dam river after river, as seems to be the proposal of B.C. Hydro and the Premier, and will never really satisfy our energy demands of the future and we will ultimately have to wind up with nuclear power anyway.

Certainly, unless we start laying down some industrial goals, creating some parameters, some industrial strategy, we will continue to require ever-increasing amounts of energy. If we continue to burn up natural gas, if we continue to use coal, both fuels which could be used for other purposes — or, at least, both substances which could be used for other purposes — we may well in the future be damned by our grandchildren as having been enormously wasteful.

Mr. Chairman, this issue of the B.C. Professional Engineer has a number of other excellent articles on nuclear power. We have had in this province a very brief and very inadequate so-called argument, so-called public discussion on nuclear power.

I have in my hand an article by Moira Farrow of The Vancouver Sun, talking about a meeting which the provincial government sponsored, inviting people to hear the pros and cons of nuclear power. She goes on to say in her first paragraph: "About six hours of debate did more to confuse than clarify the issues."

The Premier states that this is the first public venture of this kind in the province. It was inspired by the Premier. I heartily endorse what he did. I think it is a first-class approach. However, it did not, let's face it, get very far.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For the benefit of Hansard, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has interjected that it started discussion and that is exactly what I'm asking. Well, it is not quite exactly what I am asking. It began discussion but it left people more confused than ever. Since that time more than a year ago, there has been no follow-up, no continuous discussion and no real study.

HON. MR. BARRETT: People have phoned; they're writing; they are asking for them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure, there is plenty of comment. But really and truly what we don't have is a technical group in British Columbia keeping a watching brief, keeping up to date on nuclear power as an alternative to others. The reason is fair enough. The reason is clear. It is because, as the Premier states, he has a personal bias against nuclear power generation because of possible health hazards. In any case, B.C. can provide for all its power needs by further utilization of its power-producing rivers.

I dispute the second part of that statement by the Premier back last January 24. I disputed it then, I dispute it now, because there is no question that if we carry on, we are going to have to consider nuclear power. There has been talk about nuclear power being dangerous, that it is dangerous genetically. Yet Dr. Teller, who has some knowledge of nuclear power, said the genetic effects of tight pants are probably greater than the genetic effects of strontium 90. We have had people such as Dr. Michael Pierce from the University of Victoria give some excellent information as to the safety of nuclear power plants. The fact is that nuclear power may well be, as is pointed out in the B.C. Professional Engineer by George Lawrence, who has worked with nuclear plants and in that area since 1930.... Dr. Lawrence says:

"It is much less hazardous to the public than the storage and use of vast quantities of common inflammable and toxic materials that occur in our cities with little precaution."

"I believe that everyone who is well informed about Canadian nuclear reactors safety practice shares my convictions. The risk to public health and to property outside CANDU nuclear power stations operated under Canadian regulatory control is less than risks which are accepted for many other activities of equivalent economic importance."

Sure, there are risks in nuclear power, and these gentlemen admit it, which makes their presentation a great deal more convincing. But what they point out is that there are risks in having storage of oil by way of large oil tanks or tank farms; there is risk in the storage of natural gas; there is risk in the storage of just about everything.

[ Page 2705 ]

The argument has been made that there is no way to dispose of the waste, yet that particular problem is dealt with by Dr. McLean and Dr. Dyne in that same issue of the B.C. Professional Engineer.

Mr. Chairman, in voting on this $750 million for power development, I do think it is important that we realize that we may well be sucking ourselves into literally billions upon billions of dollars of investment for energy requirements, or projected energy requirements, to bring industry to the Province of British Columbia, which in turn may well affect our lifestyle, and which in turn in the future we may decide we are not so happy with. I do hope that we will have the opportunity in this Legislature of debating in a very general sense, sometime in the future, goals and objectives in terms of industrial strategy, because right now it is entirely the wrong group of people and entirely the wrong approach who are determining the future of British Columbia. It is a small group of planners in B.C. Hydro who are making no value judgments in terms of desirability or otherwise of growth in certain areas. They are simply accepting projections from private industry, from public corporations, accepting those projections and saying: "Right, we have to meet those requirements."

There is no evaluation at all at the present time in the Province of British Columbia as to whether or not those projections for power are indeed desirable in the light of what they bring to this province. There is none, that is perfectly clear. It is not the fault of the people at B.C. Hydro. It is not their job to do that. It is our job as politicians. It is the public's job also to decide.

What we have here is a cart-before-the-horse situation where instead of the B.C. Hydro planners being ultimately told, "Look, we have decided that this is an optimal position, an optimal goal", we have them saying: "We accept from industry, public and private, how much they expect to be needing in the future; we will meet that."

We then go from the Hydro to the government, who says, "Look, here is a bill which requires hundreds of millions of dollars," and we have never once examined whether or not we need to have that type of development in the province or that type of expenditure.

I don't wish to say very much more, but I would like to just point out that in our neighbouring province of Alberta, they have decided to go the route of very heavy industrial expansion. I personally think they are wrong. I think that Lougheed's development proposals will create those 100,000 new jobs he's talking about, will bring in the half million new people he's talking about, and in all probability, at the end of it, Alberta will have no increase in the personal disposable income. It will remain as it is at the present — very much the Canadian average. I believe there are going to be heavy inflationary pressures in Alberta as a result of that development, just as they are now discovering there is in Alaska as a result of their heavy involvement in energy development. I think they're going to find themselves further and further and further in debt, just as we are, to Arab nations and others, as they borrow the money for these new developments. This will lead to greater and greater expenditure in the way of dividends or interest payments and things of that nature outside the province, as they pay for their borrowings in future years.

The final point I would make is what I think has happened there and is still happening here — that when you develop enormous construction industries, you find it very, very difficult to terminate general programmes of construction. You wind up at the end of your construction of Mica, you wind up at the end of your construction of Site 1, with an enormous labour force geared to heavy construction, a large number of companies geared to it. The next thing the government has to do, of course, is look around for another major programme simply to keep employment within reasonable bounds. Once again, it's not the rational way to make decisions — to try and meet a short-run problem with a continuation of what may well be an unsound long-term programme.

So with those comments, may I say that we're going to continue to vote as we have before on this bill because we don't think it provides the right information, and we trust that in future the Premier will provide us with legislation which allows us to analyse where this province is going and whether it's a desirable course.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

FISHERIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, although there are quite

[ Page 2706 ]

a few amendments proposed for the Fisheries Act, most of them reflect no change in the branch's philosophy or responsibilities. They are mostly an updating, and, in some cases, removal of rather ambiguous sections that appeared in the old Act. Some of the terms that were used, for instance, boat pullers — there is no longer that activity; that activity is about 50 years old. Also other terms such as pilchard canneries, pilchard reduction plants — there is no longer a pilchard fishery within British Columbia.

The Act hasn't been changed in some respects for up to 40 years. The major changes are that the branch's name is changed from commercial fisheries to marine resources. This change more reflects the activities of the branch. The branch is no longer just concerned with commercial activities. For example, they are now involved in the recreational management of wild oysters. Just this year we reseeded recreational areas — transported to recreational areas some 20 tons of oysters that were inaccessible before.

We're also involved in managing aquatic plants, and these are not fisheries, so in that respect the branch's names is being proposed to be changed.

Also, the citizenship requirement for licensed fisheries is brought about to bring this part of the Act in line with the federal Fisheries Act, so there'll no longer be confusion between the two Acts.

There is a replacement of the commissioner of fisheries; it's changed to the director of fisheries. This change was made necessary because there has been a director in the branch for a decade whose function is exactly the same as the former commissioner. This title is obsolete, so the Act has been changed to read "the director of fisheries" and not "the commissioner." These are just housekeeping items.

There is another section that will bring in a provision to allow certain types of processing at sea.

The updating of these four significant changes has resulted in the necessary amendments of a number of sections because of the repetition in various sections.

I would move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Due to the make-up of this bill and the number of amendments, I think it could best be discussed in committee stage on the various amendments. We will reserve our discussion on the bill until that time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: While there are many things that will be discussed at the committee stage, there are a number of things I would like to mention at the moment — one or two at least.

The first is to congratulate the Minister for bringing this bill up to date. It has, as he pointed out, a long history in British Columbia and it hasn't been amended for a very long time.

It also emphasizes a problem which the Minister is fully aware of and which he seems to be grasping fairly well, and that is the conflicting jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments. The federal government seems to be responsible for all the fish, but all the harvesting of the fish, the floating docks, the canneries, the buying of fish, and all the rest seem to be a provincial responsibility.

I feel it would be remiss of us in this House not to point out that this Minister has been a very co-operative Minister. There seem to be much better developments with respect to federal and provincial fisheries departments than ever before in my memory. I have some minor knowledge of fishing, generally in not catching fish. I congratulate him for that. He is bringing the Act up to date and it's clear that he is bringing it up to date in a manner which is very much in harmony with the federal Fisheries Act. His people are now, for the first time, working fairly closely in conjunction with the federal fisheries people.

I cannot stress too much how this has changed from previous years when federal and provincial officials spent their time in neutralizing the efforts of one another and, from the point of view of the public, very little was achieved. The present situation with the present Minister is that they seem to be working well in harmony and they seem to be working with common goals. The public, at long last, is getting its money's worth from the vast amount of money which we put into the fisheries, both at the federal and at the provincial level.

I think it also should be mentioned at this time the steps that are being taken to deal with the problem of salmon streams in British Columbia, which also become areas of joint responsibility. This is not exactly on point in this bill although there are some sections which refer to it. The Minister has made very reasonable efforts to mesh stream development with the federal fisheries department and this has helped enormously.

A final point, Mr. Speaker, which is quite out of order, but I would like to thank the Minister for his diligent efforts to kill the Chemainus dam. I feel that this would have been a retrograde step and very bad had it continued. He did a fine job there, despite a lot of problems from his cabinet colleagues. I think that he deserves congratulations on that as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, the previous speaker is quite right. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, I agree with his statements. However, it was not my decision on the Chemainus dam. It was this government's decision to forestall any dam and do an investigation on the

[ Page 2707 ]

The previous speaker was also correct in stating that there is complete co-operation between the federal government Fisheries department and our branch of marine resources. I have met on several occasions with the new Minister, Romeo LeBlanc, and I find him a very co-operative person. This government is looking forward to working with the federal government on the enhancement programme in British Columbia.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House....

MR. SPEAKER: May I first ask the House whether they want to read it a second time?

Motion approved.

Bill 70, Fisheries Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Second reading of Bill 79.

PERSONAL INFORMATION REPORTING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Affairs): This amendment Act is proposed to enlarge the scope of the definition of reporting agencies.

Heretofore under the existing legislation the only agencies required to issue reasons for denial of credit or benefit were the credit bureaus; in other words, agencies that had this as a full-time business. However, in society there are many other credit-gathering instruments: department stores, credit card companies, financial institutions, and many others that do not have credit-gathering information as a profit-making part of their organization but do have it as a function of their respective businesses. So this has been enlarged to permit the consumer to find out why he has been denied credit or why an increase in benefit has been required of him in the matter of credit.

The proposed amendments would require all businesses that provide information to each other to be prepared to disclose such information to the consumer affected if the consumer is denied a benefit or credit or there is an increase in the amount of charges for the credit.

In addition, we are not requiring agencies such as financial institutions, credit card companies, department stores, et cetera to register as the credit bureaus are required to register. They will be merely required to observe the Act and to give the consumer the access to the information that they have on their records.

We have talked to the industry, however, and found that there was one section that was a bit onerous on the industry and really was not that beneficial to the consumer. That was a requirement that the credit-granting organizations give a very detailed statement of what the report contained to the consumer when they advised that he or she had been turned down. It's been the experience in this province and in other provinces that the consumer is satisfied usually with simply being told that he was turned down and also where he could get the details of why. This is the amendment that we are proposing to bring it in line with the practices followed in most other provinces and also to assist the business community to some degree because they have found in their experience that frequently the consumer knows why he has been turned down for credit. So these are some of the aspects.

In addition, we have found that under the existing legislation the consumer had to appear in person to obtain their report from a credit bureau. This presented a problem for people who lived usually outside of the lower mainland or lived in isolated communities. So we provided a device whereby they can obtain the report on their credit by mail through having their signature on their request either notarized by a public notary or by a commissioner of oaths.

In addition, in keeping with other legislation this department has brought in, we have designed a section to provide civil remedy in the event that there are damages or losses suffered by the consumer because of contravention of this Act.

That sums up the main features of the amendments to this legislation. I now move second reading.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister that this appears to be a bill in which she is extending the scope of consumer disclosure as far as credit is concerned. I listened with great interest to some of her points; I want to comment on them if I may.

I'd like to ask her if there is any room in the amendments as she sees them for the result of court action to allow the court to order an institution to extend credit to a customer. In other words....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll leave that with the Minister. Perhaps she'll comment on it in closing because I think it would influence our discussions in committee stage.

I think generally we would like our debate to take place in committee stage, but the Minister did touch

[ Page 2708 ]

Regarding the Minister's own statements, if I understood correctly, she has mentioned that at the request of the industry itself she withdrew a section which would require those denying credit to disclose the full reason to the consumer.

I have no desire, and our party has no desire, to make business more cumbersome. Certainly this government must take credit for giving business in this province one of the most cumbersome jurisdictions in Canada. But on the other hand — well, in 90 per cent of the cases the consumer does know why they are not receiving credit — there are cases where there may be information on their credit rating which they are not aware of. I'm sorry that I can't cite any particular instances specifically at this time, but I am sure the Minister will recall that there have been mistaken identifications where a person might well have found a criminal action attributed to their record in the past year or two years when in fact it is the wrong name or the wrong person.

There are other instances where actions have been attributed to individuals when in fact it is not the correct individual. This has been one of the most serious concerns regarding the need for public disclosure of credit ratings of consumers, and I would ask the Minister to comment on that. Does this mean, in light of her change of attitude, that the consumer no longer will have the right to actually see that credit rating report and all the details? I feel that this is a very important aspect of this whole type of legislation.

There are two sections that concern our party. Perhaps I've not interpreted them correctly — I am not a lawyer — but I would like to draw them to the Minister's attention.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: No, no. I'm just a little country girl trying to make my way in this cold, cruel, political world.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you going to hire me?

I have to refer to the sections, Madam Minister. In section 22, if I understand it correctly, the effect of striking out the word "registered" means that to say that any notice or order that is delivered under this Act is considered legally given or, I believe in the terms of the lawyer, sufficiently given at the time that it is delivered in person or by regular mail.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to point out that when we come to committee stage you will be able to put questions and make statements time after time in committee? If you have any suggestions for improvement, you could put something on the order paper now without indulging in too much of the details that go into the various sections of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I predicated my statements on a previous statement that I didn't want to transgress, but also I felt that there was a principle involved here and the Minister's response would affect our debate in committee stage. The principle I am trying to ask the Minister to comment on is that by amending the Act, section 22, you've introduced a principle of legal responsibility effective at mailing date by regular mail, and there is no proof for the individual who is supposed to receive that notice that they have in fact received it. Conversely, there would be no proof that those sending the mail or instigating the legal action would, in fact, have done this.

I understand that this leads to complications under the laws of natural justice, and I am sure the Minister wouldn't want to do that. We'd like the Minister to comment on this if she understands the principle that if you have taken out the use of registered mail as a means of legal responsibility and you are using the general mail.... In section 25, we feel that the criticism of this section is that in principle it is fine to give the consumer protection for when he suffers loss or damage as a result of contravening the Act; however, we would have to question seriously and possibly object to what must take place with the inclusion of the word "inconvenience" in two places in the principle, using the principle of "inconvenience" in the strong definition in the Act. I would ask how the Minister interprets this term. In other words, what does it mean and what is the implication in principle of the word "inconvenience"?

It seems like a rather unpalatable statutory construction which leads to confusion on the part of the consumers and legal practitioners alike. I would suggest that the principle the Minister is trying to institute here surely is not intended to be that any minor inconvenience, in the Minister's own terms, is immediately worth $100 or a greater amount. I suggest to the Minister that such wording could lead to the clogging of the courts with minor crank procedures and cases. It could also force the courts into a position of levying a fine of $100 in terms of inconvenience, but in a manner in which the court itself might not agree with, just because of the wording of the Act.

The second principle in this amendment, which we seriously question, takes place with reference to the

[ Page 2709 ]

I would suggest in principle, Mr. Speaker, that there should perhaps be an amendment to this section stating that there is a cause of action against the agency or the reporting body or the corporation or the person who contravenes the Act and that this be in the Act, not leave the sole responsibility upon the individual person. In other words, they should be backed up by those who give them the directions, or the company they work for, in terms of any contravention of the Act that they might entertain. They might well be operating under the direct order of management, yet it's the employee, as I understand it, who could be held responsible to the courts, and fined.

I would hope that the Minister doesn't intend this principle to apply and that she would indicate she's going to bring in an amendment to this principle. If not, I fully feel that we would like to, subject to her discussion.

The rest of the bill, I think, we will discuss in Committee stage, Mr. Speaker. But I hope the Minister will answer these questions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on the principle of the bill and particular references in the bill to increasing the cost of a benefit to the consumer, I must say that I would like the Minister's views, in closing this debate, on the whole question of credit cards and the enormously increasing costs to consumers — there being absolutely no provision for the cash customer who is often the person who can't get credit because he's not wealthy enough, who in turn has to pay the same price even though the shopkeeper or the retailer receives less money. In other words, a subsidy in the area of consumer credit, in the area of credit cards is from the poorer person who can't get the credit cards. He pays a subsidy which in turn makes it easier for wealthier people to use credit cards and get the benefits of credit.

I think the Minister would probably agree with me, and have some interesting words on this very, very poor situation, a current situation whereby credit cards are becoming more and more in use. The result is, of course, anywhere from a 4 to 7 per cent increase in the price of goods on the shelves. Yet anybody who comes in to pay cash cannot take advantage of a lower price even though the shopkeeper keeps 100 cents on the dollar when the guy pays cash and only gets 93 to 96 cents on the dollar when he uses a credit card.

There's discrimination in this province, discrimination throughout North America and, indeed, now the world on the basis of these wretched cards. I have a number, and if I use them I believe I should pay more because I am using them for the convenience that they provide. But if somebody comes up and pays cash, they in turn should have the benefit of paying cash — in other words, a cheaper price.

I know full well, we all know full well, that all these credit card systems depend upon a percentage being paid by the storekeeper on the basis of the bills, and this means that he gets less money. There's no reason for this discrimination to continue.

When you're talking on a bill such as this about the costs of a benefit to a consumer, whether it be either wholly or in part because of information, et cetera, you're talking about a system which, in my mind, brings up the very question of these credit cards, and a system we have established that discriminates against the person who uses cash.

I would urge upon the Minister, through her department, to encourage what are called Cashex cards. In other words, as well as all those other things you see in the door of a store — American Express, Diner's Club, heaven knows what else — you also have a little card saying Cashex. If a person came in with a card, perhaps from the Minister's own office, her own department, saying this card is a Cashex card and he presented it like everybody else presented their credit cards, that person should get an instantaneous 5 per cent reduction on the price of anything in that store. Otherwise he or she, or it — I don't know, I'm getting confused on these sexist terms — has to pay for the credit of everybody else because the average price of all goods in British Columbia in all those stores that have credit cards is higher than it otherwise needs to be. It's an iniquitous situation.

I urge the Minister in closing to let me know that this will be amended in committee stage to wipe out the subsidy paid by poorer people in society to wealthier people in society on the basis of the credit card.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and her question whether a court could order the extension of credit to a customer. I don't believe they can. It is my advice that they cannot. I appreciate that I have had people say: "I've cleaned up my credit ratings and everything — why can't I get credit?"

Of course, that remains at the discretion of the credit grantors, whether they wish to extend credit to that person or not. I realize this works a hardship on some people but it still is the credit grantors' right.

In the matter of denial of full disclosure to the customer, no, I think the Hon. Member misunderstood me in that regard. In no way does this

[ Page 2710 ]

At the present time what is required is that if there has been a denial of credit, the credit bureau or the credit-granting agency — let's say it is a department store which got the information from a credit bureau — has to go through a lengthy explanation of why you were denied the benefit. They must mail this out by registered mail to everyone who has been denied. What we are saying now is that many times the person knows why he has been denied credit, so we are saying the customer will be told he has been denied credit and where the information came from. He will be given a time period of 60 days and the name and address of where he can obtain the information and the whole record. Then the customer can follow up from there and get the information on why he was denied the credit or what is on his file.

What we have done here is extend it, because, as the Member stated, we know of examples where people got the name wrong. I had a case of that yesterday brought to my attention in which somebody in the constituency of the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was billed with a collection notice. He had never ever used the services of this particular person and didn't even know the man existed, but he was being dunned and receiving a dunning notice.

So anyway, this is what we mean. Somewhere along the line, somebody has got the records fouled up. He can contact the credit bureau or, in my view, the collection agency, and say: "Where did you get this information?" He has already done this because it is erroneous. He can contract the credit bureau and ask for a copy of his file. He can appear in person or, as I explained before, he can obtain it by mail.

As far as registered mail goes, this is in regard to a denial of benefit or something of that nature. Ordinary mail would suffice to advise a person. In the case of registered mail, the cost is fairly high. According to the Act, he has to get written reasons for a denial. If you tell somebody, "I'm sorry, you haven't lived in the city long enough," and then you have to send them a registered letter saying, "I'm sorry, you haven't lived in the city long enough," it is sort of redundant. We chopped that out and made it a little bit smoother.

In the matter of inconvenience, it would be for a court to determine if there were inconvenience in a person obtaining information, of having erroneous information put on his record, what kind of mental stress he went through. It would be for a judge to determine this and to make a judgment on whether there had been inconvenience and to what degree. That would be strictly up to the court.

In regard to an employee being held liable for violating the Act, it specifically states that no person shall knowingly supply this information. If there were an error, quite obviously the reporting agency might not be aware there was an error until the consumer brought it to their attention. They cannot be held liable in any way. But if they knowingly provide false information....

I think the Hon. Member will recall some years ago an article in one of the Weekend magazines that comes with the newspapers in which a credit bureau agent was required to deliver something like 30 reports a month.

Well, there was no way he could possibly investigate 30 people a month, so he made up half of the stuff he sent in, and it was disgraceful. This is quite obviously the thing we're trying to prevent in the legislation.

In regard to what the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said about credit cards, unfortunately this legislation is not the vehicle to deal with that particular point. I couldn't agree more with the Hon. Member. I think there's definitely a feeling in this country right now that we're being credit-carded to death. If you read the last issue of the Financial Post, you see the elaborate plans that the financial institutions have for our cashless society, the interchange between Master Charge, Chargex, and their lovely, intricate coding system....

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The price of convenience.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, the price of convenience. I'm telling you, it blows the mind to read how elaborate these arrangements are. I forget the figures, but it's millions and millions of dollars it's going to cost to convert Master Charge and Chargex into this new....

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: That's being paid for by the consumer, and it's also being paid for, in my view, by the retailer, too. They're getting nicked along with it.

I think that the Cashex is a good idea. I think definitely there is a feeling right now that either the credit card holder pays the difference — the 5 per cent or the 7 per cent or 4 per cent, or whatever — for the privilege of holding that credit card, or, conversely, the cash-paying consumer gets a decrease.

The Hon. André Ouellet has indicated that he has introduced an amendment to this effect in the House of Commons whereby the section of the contract between the retailer and the credit card company forbidding that retailer to sell at a lesser price will be outlawed. Now, hopefully, he delivers on that. I think that's only a partial solution. So we may be able to do that; it's definitely on our plate.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2711 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 79, Personal Information Reporting Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

CREDIT UNIONS ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): In introducing this bill, which will be examined section by section, I would just like to say a few words.

We have about 600,000 credit union members in the Province of British Columbia. In Salmon Arm I think it was the co-op that burned, not the credit union. Was that right, Hon. Member?

There are 179 credit unions, and intensive work on this bill has proceeded over a period of a year and a half, with consultation from the credit union movement, with the assistance of Dennis Sheppard, the Associate Deputy Minister in my department, and Dick Monrufet the inspector. It is — I believe I'm correct in saying it — acceptable to the credit union movement, but at the same time the government, representing the public interest and having a duty to ensure that safety precautions exist in terms of members' deposits and in terms of the democratic organization, have had a considerable amount to say about the bill, too.

I seem to get into the habit of saying what's not in the bill rather than what's in it, and I have to be very careful there because the Speaker always watches me. But there's only one kind of a thing that still bothers me in the credit union field. We have, of course, the credit union reserve board, which is an insurance inspection function for the savings of the credit union members. Then we have in my department the inspector of credit unions who is doing rather similar work in terms of the inspection and auditing, where necessary, and the safeguarding of assets when something can go wrong. They're both doing rather the same sort of work, so that's a field where I feel, in the next few months, that we should begin to rationalize. When you have two inspection services there is a danger that you can fall between the two stools, so I intend to authorize a study in that area. I will try to find somebody; he would need chartered accountant experience to conduct that study.

I think that we will begin to bring more order and more effective supervision as a result of a more unified service in that field. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a lengthy and complex bill. I'll just put on record that my party will have more to say at the time of committee study. We support the credit union movement and the excellent expansion it has made in the financial affairs of British Columbia in the last few years. We look forward to a rationalized Act which will study in detail later on.

Motion approved.

Bill 82, Credit Unions Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit debate in the Committee of Supply for the afternoon sitting.

Leave granted.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that we're functioning under the rules as they were between 10 a.m. and 12?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: By leave.

ESTIMATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 28: British Columbia Energy Commission, $911, 924 — continued.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, there were some questions raised to the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) this morning on which he might care to say something. I was particularly interested in the questions relating to the supply of crude for the prospective refinery. Do we have guaranteed security of supply overland from Alberta whether the government is or is not committed to a refinery? I heard the Attorney-General say this morning: "Let's not commit ourselves to a refinery." I wrote down his words. Yet is was my understanding that the Premier had committed us to a refinery. So I would be grateful if that could be straightened out.

I would ask him whether through any arm of the government for which he is responsible, in particular the B.C. Petroleum Corp., there are any exploration plans for oil or gas in British Columbia directly by the government. He seemed very optimistic this morning about the possibility of getting more oil out of the ground in British Columbia. I was wondering if he

[ Page 2712 ]

One other quick question with respect to the duties of the B.C. Energy Commission: are they or are they not contemplating undertaking a programme of monitoring progress in nuclear power developments in Canada with an eye to having expertise on line and available when the time comes for that judgment to be made?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there's no commitment, because it depends on the factors that were enumerated, including supply. There's no commitment of supply at the present time from the Province of Alberta, but friendly discussions between fellow ideologues. It hasn't gone further than that. There is no....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Exploration for oil? We had a meeting at 3 o'clock with the Canadian Petroleum Association and other people. This is not natural gas; this is exploration for crude. That's something under active....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In certain areas. Fields 1 and 2 are basically oil-bearing, as the Member knows; he lives there. You know more about it than I do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So there are things we are looking at in the field of oil exploration and supply, things that may even be the subject of legislation in this House. We've got lots of time. Nobody's in any hurry.

Your final question was about nuclear.... No, we have no studies in the field of nuclear energy at the present time in the B.C. Energy Commission.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just briefly to follow up. Did I hear the Attorney-General rightly when he was speaking of exploration plans? He was talking about exploration plans by an agency of the government?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I see. Well, perhaps you might clarify it, because that was the understanding that came through. The other question I had also with respect to the refinery: when the Attorney-General speaks of the need to secure a supply, I understand that, of course. Is he suggesting to this House when he mentions Alberta that the supply will be secured wholly from Canadian overland sources rather than potential use of tanker? If that is indeed the case, will it likely involve the diversion of Alberta crude currently going by the TransMountain pipeline to the United States and therefore mean more tanker traffic coming in in that area?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, of course the Hon. Donald Macdonald has talked about curtailing exports to the United States that would affect the TransMountain pipeline in time. The amount of oil, apart from B.C. production, that would be required for the refinery is not that much to basically affect the tanker traffic in the straits.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Above our B.C. supply? I don't think it will affect tanker traffic. But the curtailment of exports by the federal government, with which the Hon. Member is associated through party affiliation, may affect tanker traffic in the Puget Sound, but I don't think the refinery will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it would draw on the transCanada pipe to some extent.

MR. FRASER: I heard some discussion this morning that we couldn't discuss the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I realize that but it's still under energy. I just have a few questions I would like to ask regarding the site of the proposed refinery.

They have said the sites are boiled down now to Surrey, Merritt and Clinton. I would like to ask the Minister: does that preclude anybody else from applying to have the proposed refinery in their area?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Quesnel is not ruled out.

I am sorry that we passed the racing commission vote so hurriedly when the Member was outside of the House.

MR. FRASER: I am sorry I missed the racing commission vote too, but we were looking into the contents of alcohol in this province at another meeting, again under your jurisdiction. That's why I couldn't be here.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to ask one or two specific figures on this whole question of the refinery

[ Page 2713 ]

The government has succeeded in creating a tremendous amount of confusion in the public's mind. At the energy conference the Premier, in a burst of enthusiasm or a burst of something, quite definitively said that we will have a refinery in B.C. I don't know if Hansard works at the energy conferences but I am sure it's there in the transcript. Since then we have had all kinds of perambulations by different Members of government, including the Attorney-General as recently as today saying: "Let's not commit ourselves." We have the Premier talking about a trip to the United Kingdom which will involve what he calls "crucial decisions" about a refinery. We have had numerous questions asked about a supply of crude oil, and that's really never been satisfactorily answered.

I would like to ask a specific question of the Minister. Is it correct that Imperial Oil has a new refinery coming on stream in Edmonton with the effectiveness to refine 200,000 barrels a day and that even Imperial Oil is closing its Winnipeg, Calgary and Saskatoon refineries because it can effectively and economically work through the new Edmonton refinery rather than have three other smaller refineries in these other cities? If that is the case, has the government adequately researched the impact of this new Imperial Oil refinery in Edmonton in relation to the economic viability or necessity involving...I think the figure that Mr. Rhodes quoted at one time publicly was $375 million of capital investment right here in B.C.?

Now if that basic economic question can't be answered, I really have to wonder why the government is persisting with giving so much public comment from cabinet Ministers and the Premier himself to an issue which is so very tentative and maybe even unrealistic in the light of the factor that I have mentioned about the tremendous expansion of the oil refinery in Edmonton. When we consider how often the opposition parties have wondered about certain items of government expenditure in other areas, I think we are justified in asking for more specific information about this proposed oil refinery or possible oil refinery here in British Columbia. And when you add to that economic uncertainty or the uncertainty as to whether it is feasible or desirable, we have the other issue of environmental impact and the tremendous concern expressed by people — legitimately, I believe — in the Surrey area as to whether the environmental impact would not be most undesirable.

So, Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to ask the Minister is whether we couldn't have some more specific information as to where the government is at on a point of decision about the refinery. Or alternatively, because of the economic factors that have been raised and the problems of environmental pollution, could the Minister tell us if in fact the statement by the Premier at the energy conference — an outright, blanket statement that we would have a refinery — stands, or do we have to listen to the Attorney-General's comment this morning: "Let's not necessarily make a complete commitment"?

These are enormous sums of money we are talking about — taxpayers' money and capital investment. There is a lot of reason to suggest that it probably isn't economically feasible in the light of refinery plans going ahead in other provinces, particularly in Alberta, I think that as opposition Members we are entitled to press this Minister, as has been done earlier, for some more specific information than he has cared to give the House. If the Premier's statement in Ottawa that we are definitely going to have a refinery....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, he made that statement. I heard that with my own ears. I sat there and listened. I have commented on this in the House already. It came out in a very abrupt and effusive way at a certain point in the conference when Donald Macdonald announced that there definitely would be.... These Macdonalds get people into all kinds of trouble, I noticed. When Donald Macdonald announced that by August British Columbia would be given a higher price for natural gas exports to the United States, I heard the Premier, right there in that room, say: "We will build a refinery in British Columbia," or similar words to the same effect.

I think, because of these two very important elements, the fact that we are very concerned about government spending in the past, and here we may be getting into a very large industrial development involving several hundreds of millions of dollars, when it doesn't look as though we might have a crude oil supply, and secondly, the refinement capacity may not be necessary anyway, and added to all that is the environmental problem.... I think any objective person could see that the opposition Members on this side of the House would like to have more information. I wonder if we can get it in this debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you can't have definitive answers while we are still studying a situation that is in flux. We certainly know about the Imperial refinery in Edmonton, which is 180,000 barrels per day, I think. That is a factor, but I don't expect that there is going to be a product line to bring that into B.C. I think it will serve the Kootenay area and partly east of the Cascades. We can't give definitive answers while studies are being made.

[ Page 2714 ]

We are getting the information as to the need for refining capacity in this province. We don't think, frankly, that all the jobs should be in Alberta if we have a feasible project that should be done. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to refine the oil and the products that we need here in this province if the economic studies work out, and if the environmental studies work out, and if we can get favourable financing so that we don't dip into the taxpayers' pockets.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Attorney-General, all I am trying to define on the record is that your government has not yet reached the point of deciding whether or not a refinery is feasible. Could I get a straight answer to that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. The answer is the same as the Premier gave in the Legislature. He said that you can't have a refinery without oil.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, well, isn't that amazing?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is the Premier's style that perhaps confuses the Hon. Member. He said maybe we will have a refinery, but his style is so ebullient and optimistic that you assumed that was a commitment.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, a couple of areas that I would like to pursue with the Attorney-General, concerning the whole matter of energy in this province, includes one which is the possibilities of the manufacture of byproducts from the production of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia. At the present time we have to process all of the natural gas produced and put it through a scrubbing process in order to use it commercially. The only byproduct we take off at the present time is propane and the liquid distillate that is there. So we get the advantage of the sale of whatever propane we can manufacture. We get the liquid distillates that come about as a result of the absorption process of natural gas, and that is a marketable product. But at present we are not making use of the butane or the ethane or a number of byproducts that are there as a result of the scrubbing process of natural gas.

There is a substantial quantity of this product available, provided we can enter into some sort of a means of processing them. I guess a plastics industry would be one answer that we could become involved in. But certainly there is a potential, and I would think the energy commission or at least the B.C. Petroleum Corp. should be investigating very closely this area. That is a usable product that is presently going up the smokestacks in flame because it can't be used. The refining people are aware of this.

Now there is another area that I think I would like the Attorney-General to give me some answers on, and this is this matter of the possibility of the province itself actively entering into the exploration field for gas and oil. As I said to the Attorney-General, you really can't explore for one without the other, because the possibility of hitting either is a potential there. You never know, even if you know well the formations.

At the present time every company that has done any exploration in the Province of British Columbia in the last 25 years must by law file all of their logs and their core samples with the Province of British Columbia. That's confidential information, at least for a period of time, after which, I understand, the records of a drilling company may become available as public knowledge to every other drilling company if they apply to the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources to get results of their exploration programme.

If the Province of British Columbia decides to go into the exploration business on their own, what protection do the companies that presently explore in British Columbia have from the government or from an agency of government cross-relating information from all the records that are presently on file with the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, including all the core samples that have been accumulated over the last 25 years?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You mean from an existing lease of some company?

MR. SMITH: That's right. Or from any area where they have wildcatted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We would have to acquire the lease first....

MR. SMITH: That then puts you in a preferential position as compared to any other company wishing to explore in the Province of British Columbia. Talk about insider trading. You are certainly in a preferred position. No inside trader would have the access to the information that you as an agency of government would have if they decide to go that way.

I suggest to the Attorney-General that if that's your purpose and intent, you never will attract outside capital and other companies that have established a successful pattern of drilling in this province to ever again drill in the Province of British Columbia. First of all, they won't even be able to talk to a financial institution about financing their programme, let alone anything else.

So I think you should spell out in clear, definitive terms the position of the people who presently are in the process of exploration in this province, what their

[ Page 2715 ]

There is another area that I think we should investigate briefly. The Attorney-General, in speaking about the possibilities of a refinery in the Province of British Columbia, has repeatedly referred to the present known sources of crude oil and the present known production of crude oil. Is it your intention, Mr. Attorney-General, to divert the present crude oil production from existing refineries to supply your own refinery in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It goes into the pipe. It's all mixed up.

MR. SMITH: Regardless of whether it is mixed up or not with Alberta crude, there is a known factor of production in the Province of British Columbia. I suggest to you and I say to you this, Mr. Attorney-General: if you are going to divert the present supplies of crude oil stock from existing refineries, then you are ripping off the public of the Province of British Columbia and every taxpayer here. They should never be expected to invest one dime in a new refinery if you are going to divert the production of crude oil from existing facilities that are there and paid for not by the public purse but by private investment to stock your own refinery with crude oil which presently goes to existing facilities which have capacity far above and beyond anything that we are presently producing in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have a few words in this discussion of this vote. Before I do I would like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Taylor-Smith, a prominent businessman of this province, accompanied by the mayor of Clinton, Grethyll Adams, seated in the Members' gallery.

I wasn't going to speak on this vote until I heard some of the Members discussing the environmental impact — and of course it's happened in the past, too, on the salary vote of the Attorney-General — the awful pollution of the environment and damage to the environment done by a refinery. I think what these Members should do is a little more research and find that there is absolutely no necessity for any refinery polluting either water, land or air.

The one that I worked in for 16 years removed water from the Thompson River and put none back. There were three holes drilled to the water table between the refinery and the river, and the water table is sampled every month. So far in 18 years of that refinery's production there has been no pollution of the Thompson River from the refinery. There is some odour from the stacks when certain types of crude are used. This also could be taken care of with a washing process. A visit to Los Angeles would show two refineries in the downtown area, and you could have a sidewalk cafe beside either one of them.

The Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), when he attended the Law of the Sea Conference just a short time ago, on his way there took a visit to the new refinery at Goteborg and the new refinery in Holland and found that one was free of noise pollution...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right, you could drink the gasoline.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: ...and free of odour pollution.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's so pure.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The other was clear of water pollution, but not clear of the noise and odour pollution. So it shows that a combination of the two could very easily produce a pollution-free refinery. And it is technically feasible. It is technically feasible and possible to construct a pollution-free refinery.

Now as far as studies are concerned about the need for another refinery in the province, for years we have been importing during the peak season in August, September and October refined products from the Province of Alberta. There was a lot of refinery construction, as has been mentioned, in Alberta: the large Imperial Oil refinery in Edmonton and the Gulf refinery — of, I believe, 100,000-barrel-a-day capacity — in Edmonton. But to do this they phased out three very old, out-of-date refineries that were not meeting the modern criteria for production versus manpower.

When Gulf built their refinery in Canso Straits it was for 120,000 barrels, even though the capacity is not needed at the present time. They were thinking back to when they added to British Columbia's capacity with their refinery in Port Moody, built for 20,000 barrels and within a matter of 10 years rebuilt to add 10,000 barrels. The one I worked in in Kamloops was a small refinery built by the Seagram people. They were behind the Royalite Oil Company, and they thought it was just as easy to distill oil as it was to distill whisky. But they found that breaking into a new market with a new product was a very difficult thing to do, and they ended up selling out to British American.

British American pulled a very strange trick. British American did not have very much crude oil capacity in Canada to go with their refining capacity; so they bought out Gulf Oil's field capacity in Canada. To do this it cost them 65 per cent of the

[ Page 2716 ]

So a refinery is necessary. The need for refined products in British Columbia has been growing for the past 10 years at 5 per cent a year, and only one 20,000-barrel-a-day refinery has been added to the production of the province.

I'd like to just touch on another subject while I'm on my feed on this vote. I would like to see a little more consideration given to the proclamation of section 4 of the Energy Act — yes, I believe that's what it's called. Well, we are getting to a situation where oil companies are converting lessee stations over and over and over to self-serve gas bars, and because there is 1 cent to 1.5 cents saved by the public, it seems like a good thing. But what happens when the competition that these independents that are leasing their stations — or own their stations — from the oil cartels...? What happens when 80 per cent of them are operated as self-serve gas bars? Then they have control completely of the price that they'll charge in any section of this province. I would urge that regulations be drawn up that are applicable to section 4 of that Act and that the Attorney-General proclaim this section of the Act just as soon as a proper set of democratic regulations can be drawn up for the retailing of petroleum products in this province, or we the public are going to be the ones who eventually suffer.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Hon. Attorney-General going to answer?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you have another short question...then I'll answer your running mates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going to be a little longer than short, but not much shorter than long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) proceed, then, with his remarks?

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General just how wide ranging the terms of reference of the British Columbia Energy Commission are. For instance, are they studying, in their terms of reference, wind power?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, if they were, they'd have a field day right here in the Legislature. (laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I could certainly understand that, particularly when the Attorney-General is speaking or when the Premier is speaking.

In terms of reference, are they studying solar energy? Or are we leaving that up to our neighbours across the way, the United States?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think Hydro is doing those exotic things.

MR. PHILLIPS: Hydro. Well, that's what I wanted to know. Who is studying the possibility of the gasification of our great coal deposits? There are sufficient coal deposits, if the Attorney-General is aware of them, to do all of North America and British Columbia for next 10,000 years. That's a pretty healthy supply.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we've got oil sands. I'm not a pessimist when it comes to talking about energy. I'm not one of those persons who goes around saying that we're going to be running out of energy. My theory is that if you give the incentive to look for new sources of energy, there's lots of energy. I'm just wondering how that incentive to look for more energy is going to be conducted when the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. is going into the drilling of wells themselves.

Just a couple of questions on that, Mr. Chairman, with regard to that Thetlandoah discovery in northeastern British Columbia, that great discovery which British Columbia Petroleum Corp. brought in. Maybe the Attorney-General would answer me a few questions on that. I understand this was financed by advancing to a relatively unknown operator about $2.5 million, and that the well that was brought in is a relatively shallow well with a low load deliverability.

HON. MR. KING: Sounds like a Socred well.

MR. PHILLIPS: Low deliverability.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The $2.5 million is an advance payment on natural gas.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, I realize that. It was an advance payment on natural gas. But what I'd like to know, if we're going to condone this type of thing, is...there are probably going to have to be 15 or 20 wells drilled in this area before it's economical to build a pipeline. Are you going to wait before you get the return on that $2.5 million? Are you going to wait until the 15 to 20 wells are drilled, because this is in a relatively low-producing area? How many

[ Page 2717 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They ran them all out.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like the Attorney-General to answer me: what is the absolute open flow of this great well?

I remember when it was brought in. Oh, there was a great announcement in the paper, and the Premier was saying, "Oh, we found gas. Oh, great deal. British Columbia Petroleum Corp. found gas."

AN HON. MEMBER: Political gas, that's all.

MR. PHILLIPS: Political gas is exactly what is was. This well is a very shallow well. The deliverability allowable under the present terms would probably be about 8 million cubic feet, which is a very low well. In order to get your money back, you have to drill maybe 15 to 20 wells in this particular area. All this great political falderal about bringing in this well is really telling the public you've done something great when really all you've done is huffed and puffed and you haven't blown over any mountain at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You seem to be hurting.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I'd like to know. I was quite interested when I heard all of this great announcement about the discovery of gas in northeastern British Columbia. My research tells me that after I get through, after I look with great expectation...I think, my gosh, they've done it. They've really got it. That's after all of the other oil companies have gone off to greener fields — Alberta, the United States — after the Attorney-General with his policies has pushed them all out. "Get out, get out!" Now, he's doing his own drilling, and he's found a great gas discovery. I thought when I read it in the paper that, my gosh, we don't have to worry; we can forget about all those pessimistic arguments and pessimistic statements of the government that there is no more gas in British Columbia.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The doom-and-gloom boys.

MR. PHILLIPS: The doom-and-gloom boys. Absolutely right. The doom-and-gloom boys.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The break-and-take boys, because they've broken the oil companies and now they're going to take them over.

Tell me, Mr. Attorney-General, what is the absolute open flow of this well; What is going to be your deliverability allowable? How many wells are presently being drilled in that area; How much more money have you advanced; This all comes under energy. I'd like the answers to those questions.

Now the other point that I'd like to bring up is with regard to the refinery.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not under this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know, but we've been discussing it all day. (Laughter.) Far be it from me to change the rules around, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to change the rules of the House; I just want to continue with what is accepted, and in the accepted manner, as it were.

We had this great announcement that the Premier was going to build an oil refinery in Surrey. We've had many discussions about where it should be, farmland, and all the rest of it. I won't discuss that aspect of it, but I would like to just keep the Premier honest. He says that we're going to build this refinery with $350 million of new-found money from the United States' bonanza in gas. I'd like the Attorney-General to tell me, if he's going to build this refinery for $350 to $400 million and it's going to take at least three to four years to complete this refinery.... Imperial Oil just finished an Edmonton-Strathcona plant with, in all probability, cheaper labour that we have in British Columbia. It is 125,000 barrels a day — a smaller refinery. Do you know what the cost is estimated to be? Without inflation that is going to take place in three or four years, the cost of that plant is $500 million for 125,000 barrels a day.

We're looking three to four years down the road. Unless the Attorney-General has some really sharp card up his sleeve, I don't think he is going to be able to curb inflation immediately. I hope that he can and maybe Mr. Turner can.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now Shell is planning a similar 150,000-barrel-a-day unit in Edmonton or Red Deer and they're talking about $750,000 million to $1 billion when completed in 1980. So I'd like to know where this figure of $350 million to build an oil refinery came from.

MR. FRASER: Right out of the sky.

M R. PHILLIPS: I know that the Attorney-General, who is the chief law enforcement officer in British Columbia, is a man that everybody

[ Page 2718 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. It must be gilt-edged; it must be written in tablets of stone, as it were. I know that he wouldn't be part and parcel....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Try telling that to my wife.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, what you say to your wife and what you say to the people are two different things. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: I should hope so.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Attorney-General, what are you — president of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. or chairman of the board? Anyway, you seem to be in charge of energy in British Columbia. I know that you wouldn't be part or parcel to misleading the people of British Columbia over the cost of this proposed refinery.

I'd like to know what studies were done and where this figure of $350 million came from. If you just plucked it out of the air, tell me. Or do you think there is British technology that you can acquire that will allow you to build it...?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I read it in the paper — the Premier gave it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. You don't know where the Premier got it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'd have to ask him.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, do you not talk to each other or are you like the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) — you don't have time to talk to your staff? I'm sure that you and the Premier get together.

But the point is, Mr. Chairman, that these are very, very serious matters. Attorney-General is second in command in the cabinet now, and he wants to hold that position, so I'm sure he'll level with the Legislature this afternoon. We don't want another cabinet shuffle, you know.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you really want answers on that? The problem with ethane and our natural gas flowing across the border is something we've been very conscious of, and we're losing. It doesn't detract from the BTU value to extract that. That's been studied. We're not going to seize anybody's seismic studies. If they've got a lease and they've done their work, if they sell us the lease, we'll pay them for the studies.

MR. SMITH: All you have to do is open up the drawer and look at them. They're there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no, not the particular drilling studies of a particular company that has a lease. Anyway, we wouldn't do that; we're not the kind of government that does that.

In terms of possible public exploration, of course that's.... You say we can never contemplate that; we say we must. We can't be at the mercy of private operators with our natural resource, and we don't intend to be. If things go well with the private industry, either in partnership or otherwise, fine. If it doesn't, we'll go Sask. Oil's route. Sure we will; so would any government. We won't divert from existing refineries.

In terms of the new wells — I don't want to give all the figures because I'd shock that Hon. Member here. But B.C.'s record of successful wells — I won't give the background figures about drilling permits and so forth — but 32 wells have been completed in B.C. by February 8, 1975, as opposed to 24 wells in February, 1974, the year before. Our ratio is going up; our strike success ratio for natural gas is going up. We haven't had the decline in exploration or the success rate that they've had even in Alberta. Mind you, they've got a much bigger field to work with. In terms of the $350 million price, that's based on present economic studies, but I'm not saying that is final.

The question of the total price....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. The question of the total price, based on the latest and best cost estimates, will be announced if and when the refinery is announced.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A very brief question after these long and weighty topics that have been discussed will probably seem a bit insignificant to some of the Members. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of concern in my riding about the price of petroleum products — gasoline, heating fuel, and this type of thing. There is a great disparity in the prices in some of the areas in my riding in the cost of gasoline, for example — up to 20 cents a gallon in some areas.

I wouldn't want to accuse the oil companies of being in collusion, although we all know that Imperial Oil sets the pattern for this province, but the fact is that the ordinary person out there who has to buy his gas, fuel and heating oil really wonders why there is a 20-cent difference between, for example, Gibsons and Powell River. Why? I would like to know.

[ Page 2719 ]

I have discussed this matter with the B.C. Energy Commission on a number of occasions and I have had good co-operation from that commission and very sensible replies. But what I am suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, is that this government should get directly involved in the distribution of fuel oil and energy and petroleum products.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't see any reason why we should have to adhere to the monopolies that exist now. I don't see why the B.C. Petroleum Corp. is not directly involved in such a venture for the good of the people of this province. I am asking you now, Mr. Minister, that the government look at the possibilities and that we darn well take a good look at this matter. Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it probably just slipped the Attorney-General's mind that he forgot to tell me about Thetlandoah, that great discovery.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You know, the B.C. Petroleum Corp. has plans. They work it out and of course many of them are carried out through Westcoast Transmission — building gathering systems, new pipelines. A new scrubbing plant is in the works because some of the gas is so far south of Taylor that to bring it back up north and then take it down again....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. But you may need a different kind of....

MR. PHILLIPS: Quasar. They are going to put their own scrubbing plant in down there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is more than Quasar down there. Anyway, they do have complete plans for piping in any gas that is found. I think you know the exploration grants that have been given as pre-purchase on the gas to be found are going to be very successful. They give the little operator who doesn't have big reserves of cash a break and enable him to drill. We have had success with that programme.

MR. SMITH: On this matter of that Quasar development in the Grizzly Valley area, out in the Monkman Pass, there are a number of companies out there, I agree. There has been a school of thought that with the gas production from there, the most reasonable route to take that production by pipeline would be down through Alberta and into their gathering system rather than back into any existing facilities or new facilities in British Columbia. Has the Attorney-General or the energy board given consideration to the fact that this might be economic on the basis of allowing that production to go into Alberta and take a similar amount of production from Alberta back into British Columbia down through Kingsgate or the lower end of the province? Is this under consideration?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On detailed questions such as your colleague answered, I would be glad — I can't do it right now — to give you the plans for bringing in the gas that has been found in that field. The gas that is to the southwest of the line between Fort Nelson and Fort St. John....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we are thinking in terms of a new scrubbing and cleaning plant in that area. It wouldn't be as big as the main installation.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Quasar deal — that is practically ready to go as soon as you decide what you are going to do, which brings up a point. The energy commission, or the petroleum corporation — I am not sure just which — have a two-price system for old gas and new gas. But let me tell you, Mr. Attorney-General and this is very important and I want you to be aware of it — for instance, we are going to put into production a well that has been capped for quite some time. To put a capped well into service, first of all you have to check the casing. The reason you have to check the casing is because of the acids in the gas. If it has been capped for over five years, in all probability the casing has been eaten away. So if it is defective or leaking, as most are due to acid gas in them, the casing must be pulled out and repaired or replaced. What we are looking at.... The next step is to install the production tubing in the wellhead dehydrating and separating equipment.

To put the average capped well into production means capital expenditure, in this case, equal to 80 per cent of drilling a brand new well, which gets the new gas price. This is actual cases. So the guy is lost; he has only 20 per cent of his investment left. I am concerned, Mr. Attorney-General, that if you are going to bring these capped wells on stream, you should take a real look at this two–gas price system because maybe the old gas, particularly the ones that have been capped and haven't been functioning, should get the same price as the new wells that are drilled. I don't know how extensively you have checked into this or how much the energy commission has checked into this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, there is an inquiry going on.

[ Page 2720 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I know and I've been following it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Your figure is wrong, I think, but let it go.

MR. PHILLIPS: My figures on this particular well are not wrong because you have to put in all the equipment. Mr. Chairman, I have been following these hearings with a great deal of interest. I know that you are trying to come up with some incentive to get drilling rigs back on the scene in British Columbia. Now all I am trying to do is help the Attorney-General to accomplish just that. That's why we are giving these suggestions.

Now let the Attorney-General listen to the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and myself. When the petroleum corporation was being formed and you were driving these oil companies out, we told you at the time what was happening. If you listened to us then you wouldn't be in this jackpot now. We wouldn't be facing the energy crisis because there would have been the incentive to explore for new gas, which you are trying to re-institute at the present time. We'll forgive you for your past mistakes, but don't continue on in the same manner because you are hurting British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All I ask is to make the same speech in your own constituency. We want our candidate to win.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I know what you are going to say. You are going to get up and you are going to say that I voted against the B.C. Petroleum Corp. You know why I voted against the B.C. Petroleum Corp. It was because of those powers that you have. That's why. And I could never vote for those, you know that. Now let's not get political. I am trying to be serious. I am being serious.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Difficult, isn't it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now the other problem, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that B.C. oil reserves.... Now, Mr. Attorney-General, pay attention to this. Pay attention to this. I've done a lot of work and research on this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know you have.

MR. PHILLIPS: The oil reserves in British Columbia are declining 10 to 12 per cent yearly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on, now!

MR. PHILLIPS: The oil reserves are declining 10 to 12 per cent yearly and the pipeline will probably have to be shut down by 1983 or 1984. Present oil fields throughout British Columbia are down around 70,000 barrels a day. This is oil I am talking about, not gas. And no new wells have been found.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Down 70,000? They've never produced that much.

MR. PHILLIPS: On, no, they are down to around 70,000 barrels a day — present throughput from the oil fields.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Between 40,000 and 50,000.

MR, PHILLIPS: Well, either you're wrong or I'm wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us who it is.

MR. PHILLIPS: The point is that the oil reserves are declining. How are you going to keep that present pipeline functioning unless you find some new reserves? They are going to run out. All right, so my year is out; so maybe it's going to be another two or three years later.

Now what's going to happen to that pipeline with all the gathering systems and the pumping stations and the rest of it? I am not talking about the gas pipeline; I am talking about the oil pipeline. I would like to know what the energy commission plans to do with an empty pipeline — that's right, an empty pipeline. If you don't have more drilling, as the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) just pointed out, you are going to have an empty pipeline. Now what are you going to do about it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, we estimate that of the known reserves, there are probably unknown about twice that amount in British Columbia in the northeast section. Of course those reserves must be explored and developed, as they will be. Just have faith. Have faith.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I can't vote on faith. Tell me how you are going to do it or at least give me some instance. Tell the Legislature. I can't vote on faith. Let's be serious.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is one of the things that's been the subject of the hearings. We have made it very clear to the Thompson hearings. Don't only look at the wellhead production of natural gas; look at the oil situation too. And that's being done. So I don't want to talk too much about it now. Then after he has made his report, the government will develop its policies.

[ Page 2721 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I wasn't going to take part in this debate, but the Attorney-General has spread so much confusion this afternoon about this refinery question that I want to take about two minutes to get a couple of facts straight about the refinery.

The Attorney-General has accused us of misinterpreting what the Premier said about the refinery. But his own press release on April 9, 1975, says that the Government of British Columbia will build a petroleum refinery in the province. There is no equivocation there; he says that they will build a refinery in the province. It will have a capacity of 100,000 barrels a day.

Where did we get the figure of $350 million? The Premier says that it will take about three or four years' lead time at a cost, including inflation, of about $350 million. So the Premier was very straightforward in the statement that he made. He also said that the supply of crude oil, despite the fact he had no agreement with Alberta, would come through the existing TransMountain pipeline from Alberta. So the Premier has been straightforward.

There was no doubt in anyone's mind, after his statements about what was going to happen, that we were going to go ahead, come hell or high water, with this refinery in British Columbia.

The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) says we don't have to worry about pollution. No sweat about that. There will be no pollution. Yet Dr. Frank Murray, the head of UBC's chemical engineering department, isn't quite so sure. He says that the pollution potential of this new refinery is worse than that of any large pulp mill. He also says, in the case of the Surrey area, that if we put that refinery in there, it would be a case of turning a river into an industrial sewer. That is the head of the chemical engineering department of UBC.

Mr. Chairman, we know that the Premier is going to Great Britain next month sometime to talk about this refinery. But Jim Rhodes of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. already says that he has confirmation from Great Britain of medium-term financing for the borrowed money for this refinery — already confirmed, based on an agreement that 80 per cent of the equipment and services in construction would originate in Great Britain. That is confirmation, according to Rhodes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've had that offer.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, Rhodes also says that it is going to be a hydro-skimming or topping plant. He is talking about what the plant will produce. He is very sure. So is Mr. Lechner, the corporation counsel. He has told the people in Surrey that there will be a refinery. If that is the case, then obviously the Attorney-General doesn't know what is going on in other departments of government.

I would just like to ask the Attorney-General a couple of other questions. First of all, if there isn't going to be a refinery and it isn't going to be in the Surrey area, why the rush to purchase some 1,500 acres of land on option in the Surrey area? Why do we need that land if there isn't going to be a refinery?

Secondly, if it is finally decided that the refinery will not be built — I have asked this question before and I have never had an answer — will those options be dropped and will that land be returned to private ownership?

This next question I wish to ask is why the government, when it commissioned Thurber and associates of Victoria to do an environmental impact study for the refinery proposal, only gave Thurber and associates lower mainland sites to consider. It didn't give them any other sites in British Columbia, only lower mainland sites. Why did they do that if they were really serious about considering other sites?

Finally, I would ask the Attorney-General if he would confirm or deny that the government's own Environment and Land Use Committee has recommended that the refinery not be built in Surrey.

Those are straightforward questions. Maybe for once we can get some straightforward answers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you can't get straightforward answers when we have not made final decisions. There is no final commitment to a refinery, because it depends upon acceptability in the local area. The Premier said that right in the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: But he said other things as well.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It depends upon assurance of supply. So there we are. I would think the probabilities are very high that we should have this facility in B.C. But to say positively yes....

MR. McCLELLAND: Why are you buying the land?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, the Premier hasn't said that. In terms of the land, do you think it should go back to private ownership?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Unless it is a particularly useful purchase for the public, or part of it...if we don't go ahead there.

Interjection.

[ Page 2722 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not necessarily all of it.

MR. McCLELLAND: What about the studies?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was only one study.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, have there been others? Where are they? We would like to see them.

Vote 28 approved.

On vote 29: rentalsman, $1,281,644.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that figure is correct that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) gave us for the total vote on the rentalsman's office. I would just like briefly to mention a few things about a case which was before the courts a while ago in regard to the rentalsman's office. The case of Jeanette Greenhut and Felix Silbery. the rentalsman and various members of the rentalsman's staff brought forward a pretty serious problem within the rentalsman's office, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, all right. Just hang on a second, though.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily satisfied with that answer, because I don't like what is going to be proposed.

The court was very critical of the operation of the rentalsman's office. In particular, Mr. Justice Mackoff gave a very serious indictment against the rentalsman in which he charged that office with adopting an unbelievable procedure. Those were his words, "an unbelievable procedure," in relation to this particular landlord-tenant dispute.

I am not only talking about the procedure of the rentals officer passing an order. I think that that is what you are talking about now. There are other things as well.

That included the opportunity which was given to a rentals officer who was very biased and had shown his bias in the past, allowing him to take part in this particular dispute. Mr. Justice Mackoff said that there was a potential bias. I'd just like to read from the transcript of his judgment in which Mr. Justice Mackoff pointed out that only a few months earlier, prior to becoming a rentalsman's officer, this rentals officer appeared for a tenant in a dispute with the same landlord that the court case was about and offered to appear for another tenant in a dispute with the same landlord. Yet the rentalsman could not see any bias with that rentals officer, after having been given that $20,000-plus job a year and then going on to appear for the rentals office with the same people involved.

The nub of the matter, of course, is that it wasn't withdrawn. The justice quashed the order; the order was quashed with good reason. I just point out that this rentals officer was also a tenants' rights organizer before getting his job with the rentals office.

The Attorney-General is not tightening that up at all, regardless of the fact that he says there's legislation going to come forward. The other point is, of course, that the rentals officer made a direct order contrary to the legislation which does not allow a rentals officer to make any orders pertaining to disputes. What the Attorney-General wants to do is to just give all rentalsman officers the powers of a rentalsman. That's not good enough, especially if you're going to have biased rentals officers. They're going to make biased decisions and they're going to give biased orders. That's not the solution to that dispute.

In fact, the way things are set up in the bureaucracy of the rentals office now, it would appear that there's very little way that anyone can get a fair and impartial hearing, particularly if that person happens to be a landlord, because the weight all seems to be on the side of the tenant with regard to these kinds of orders. The rentals officers have been making decisions; they have been holding hearings with landlord and tenant disputes. That's in clear violation of the Act itself, which says that only the rentalsman and his deputy have the right to make those kinds of decisions.

No one has been reprimanded, as I understand it. Instead of that, you make the legislation fit the crime. Instead of telling these people that they shouldn't have been doing what they're doing, and don't do it any more, you change the legislation to give them the opportunity to go on doing what they've been doing. That doesn't seem to be the kind of action we need from the Attorney-General's department to clear this system up. Instead of making things better, we're paving the way for a rental officer to become a full deputy rentalsman, again regardless of his bias.

Barrie Clark, the rentalsman, was very upset with the ruling of Justice Mackoff. In a radio interview after that, he said that he'd like to discuss the correctness of the judge's ruling with the Attorney-General. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General whether or not this has happened yet. Has the rentalsman talked with him and what are the results of that?

A couple of other quick ones. The rentalsman also said that there would be a number of amendments to the rentalsman's Act in the fall. I wonder if the

[ Page 2723 ]

Leonard MacArthur, who is the deputy rentalsman, speaking in Calgary, said that construction of new apartments has nearly halted in British Columbia. He said that landlords are demanding key money and other illegal, under-the-table payments in return for freeing apartments for new tenants. And the rentalsman himself, Barrie Clark, says he's completely opposed to rent controls.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds any further, I think that he should attempt to.... You are embarking on material which is not contained in this vote. I think there was a separation of the duties.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'm speaking about what the rentalsman has said publicly.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the rentalsman is an important part of all of the legislation on landlord-tenant disputes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't think that rent ceilings or rent controls are contained or can be considered under this particular vote. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the responsibilities of the rentalsman's office.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the rentalsman and the public statements he's made which deal directly with his office, and the opportunity that he has to deal with landlord-tenant disputes. The two are interrelated. You can't separate them, even though they're under separate jurisdictions.

The rentalsman has said rent controls haven't been in effect long enough for landlords to be badly hurt yet. But he warned that when they do begin to feel the pinch, they may reduce the quality of maintenance and facilities, like closing swimming pools, introducing coin laundries and eventually abandoning their properties, as happened in New York. Now, that's the rentalsman who said that, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask the Attorney-General whether or not we're going to listen to people like the rentalsman, the deputy rentalsman, and take some action now to stop this happening.

Are we just going to sit back in British Columbia and wait while landlords start abandoning their properties, wait while no new rental accommodation goes up, wait while tenants are forced into substandard housing, wait while apartments deteriorate in condition, wait while this key-money situation gets worse, wait while tenants have to line up and pay blackmail to get into apartments? Are we just going to wait? Are we going to do something? Listen to our own officers, the rentalsman....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You are on record as being in support of it.

MR. McCLELLAND: No way, Mister. No way. We're on record as being opposed, and clearly opposed, to rent controls in British Columbia, and you know it, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are we going to wait and wait and wait while the situation deteriorates in British Columbia...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would caution you....

MR. McCLELLAND: ...or are we going to face up to the issue and do something about it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If I could answer on the part that pertains to this vote, the decision of Mr. Justice Mackoff, in my humble opinion, was a sound decision. I'm pretty sure it's not been appealed; I don't want to say that absolutely. But my reaction when I read the decision was don't appeal it. He proceeded on two grounds: first that there was not a sufficient power of delegation in the legislation. You know, the rentalsman can't do all of these adjudications, so there has to be that kind of a power system within his office. But it was defective. In the second place, he said that the particular rental officer who heard this dispute in the first few months of an operation which was just inundated with looking after the grievances of tenants, and landlords for that matter, in the first few months, made a mistake. This particular officer had some association with the tenants' group that were somehow involved in that area. And that's wrong.

So I think you should separate out the question of bias. If there's any officer who is biased, who's adjudicating in the rentalsman's office, he should be taken right out of that dispute. If his bias is of a general nature, he shouldn't be an officer and hearing disputes. But the rest of it is subject in the Statute Law Amendment Act of the Attorney-General's department. In light of the Mackoff judgment, we're

[ Page 2724 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Depends what you're biased for or biased against.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a far more important vote than perhaps the average citizen might appreciate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: By this legislation setting up the rentalsman, we've placed an individual in a position of authority, and that authority seems to be very readily subject to abuse and to misinterpretation as to the jurisdictional power of this person called the rentalsman, and the jurisdictional power working under him.

I think the particular case that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) quoted, and the Minister's response, points out the real dangers in this new office of rentalsman. I would like to quote part of the judgment that Justice Mackoff gave in this case. He said that the Act gives the rentalsman great latitude in the conduct of proceedings, that the Act was designed — and in my view rightly so — to expedite the adjudication in disputes between landlord and tenant by removing the formalities generally associated with judicial hearings. I'll go on with the quotation, and the key to this part, Mr. Chairman. He goes on to say: "But the Act does not do away with natural justice." I don't think we can stress that too much.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's why I agree with the judgment.

MR. WALLACE: I might interject, Mr. Chairman, that in a comment across the floor a moment ago it was stated that the rentalsman wanted to discuss with the Attorney-General the rightness or correctness of the judge's decision. I would hope that was only stated in the context that the rentalsman was going to ask the Attorney-General's personal opinion, and not suggest that in any way there would be any interference with Justice Mackoff's decision.

Justice Mackoff made the very clear statement that the Act does not do away with natural justice, nor does it authorize the unbelievable procedure used by those designated to exercise a quasi-judicial function. The Act requires a fair and impartial hearing and adjudication in disputes between landlord and tenant, and each is entitled to expect and receive no less.

Now, Mr. Chairman, just in case the committee feels that the case quoted is some kind of exception, I would like to just quickly outline for the House another situation that occurred in another part of the Province where an owner of a mobile-home park, under the terms of the Act, gave appropriate length of notice to the tenant to vacate so that the owner could use the vacated space for his own home.

The tenant appealed to the rentalsman on the grounds that the owner should pay $300 moving expenses. The rentalsman, in a letter of January 29, 1975, stated that sections 17 and 20 didn't really apply, as far as they could determine, but they felt that in some sense of fair play maybe the owner should pay the $300.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's supposed to give 120 days notice and pay $300. He didn't do it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we don't argue the legal details at this point as to the manner in which the whole issue was handled, and the excessive jurisdiction which the rentalsman tries to exert where there is doubt.

In that same letter of January 29, let me quote — and this is why I am so concerned about the process of natural justice being thwarted and usurped by the rentalsman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Whose letter are you quoting?

MR. WALLACE: Let me quote the letter from Mr. P.B. Smith, senior deputy rentalsman, January 29, 1975. He finishes with this paragraph:

"Please be advised it is not the rentalsman's intention to enforce this opinion and that in the event of the landlord's failure to pay the tenant's claim of moving expenses, the tenant must seek recourse in a court of competent jurisdiction."

This is the crunch, that the rentalsman says that if they cannot settle the dispute — each side believing that he is right — the tenant must seek recourse in a court of competent jurisdiction. That was January 29.

Now let me read the letter of March 6.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we restrain ourselves a little, please?

MR. WALLACE: The rentalsman himself, Barrie Clark, then wrote a letter on March 6. He says:

"It has come to our attention that the small claims division will not accept this application and it must proceed to the county court. In view of these circumstances, I would request you reconsider your inaction in settling this claim. I believe it would not be fair to Mr. and

[ Page 2725 ]

Mrs. Ulrich, with significant legal expenses, inasmuch as the county court would require them to be represented by an attorney."

So this seems to be a question of the rentalsman's office feeling that it has some obligation to take action for people to save them court expenses. It doesn't mention anything about the court case expenses to which the landlord would be subjected. It is a question of bias which again arises. This kind of case leaves a very bad odour in many respects.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But maybe the landlord owes the money.

MR. WALLACE: Maybe he does, and it should be settled in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Let me finish this case, because he then goes on to threaten the landlord. Listen to the next letter. April 11.

"In re-examining all matters pertaining to this dispute, I must conclude that Mr. and Mrs. Ulrich have reasonable grounds to believe that section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act should apply. I can now see but two possible ways whereby this dispute might be finally settled. The first would be to refer the dispute to arbitration, and in this regard I offer the services of this office, namely an officer who has not thus far been involved in the matter to act as arbiter on the condition that his findings shall be binding.

"The other alternative remaining is for me to recommend to Crown counsel that an action be commenced against you for breach of section 20 (3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act."

What I would like to know is just how neutral the rentalsman is in this province. In this case, to my view, he has decided that in his judgment the landlord is at fault, although if you read the whole case, it is debatable. I think there are some reasons on both sides. I've spent a long time studying sections 17 and 20 and reading the letters and the correspondence. As I say, I don't think we want to take the time of the House debating the legal points. But the fact is that the purpose for which this man asked the tenant to vacate does not really come under section 20, and it is section 20 that demands that $300 payment of moving expenses. This man asked the tenant to vacate under section 17, which does not involve the $300 moving expenses.

But I don't want to go into all that part of it. What I am concerned about is how far the jurisdiction of the rentalsman goes when it is established that a dispute exists and that the parties are not prepared to reach an agreement simply by the mediation or advice or otherwise of the rentalsman's department.

The first letter which the rentalsman's office sent on this particular case summed it up very well — that in my view, that if you can't decide it, let's settle it in the court of appropriate jurisdiction or appropriate competence. But then the rentalsman goes off on a tangent because he takes sympathy on one of the two parties, thinking they can't afford court expenses, and says: "Dear, oh dear, we will have to take some other route to settle this problem." And he finally writes another letter threatening the landlord with prosecution.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that that was the purpose of setting up the rentalsman's office, any more than Justice Mackoff, in the same light, castigated the rentalsman for allowing an officer to make certain decisions which were rubber-stamped by the deputy rentalsman.

So that, together with some of the other situations that have arisen is suggesting lack of neutrality. For example, just to quote another one that's on my desk today, we have this same Mr. Whaley, the officer who got himself into difficulties in the case we've discussed under Justice Mackoff, who is now quoted here in The Province newspaper, Tuesday, May 29, 1975:

"Mr. Whaley encouraged the group of tenants to make the demonstration as loud and noisy as possible. 'This is the only way that the Attorney-General will get them moving,' and apparently members of the Downtown East Side Residents Association will picket the Rental Review Commission next Monday to protest the lack of activity. Association president Bruce Ericson told the meeting that both the commission and the office of the rentalsman have been ignoring complaints from his group."

Now we are not here to talk about the Rent Review Commission, but it does include the statement that the office of the rentalsman has been ignoring complaints from this group, and then Mr. Whaley gets into the action again and suggests that they start picketing.

Now how neutral is neutral, or how biased is biased?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If that report is correct, then the gentleman named should not be adjudicating disputes.

MR. WALLACE: Now, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney-General's comments. I don't want to belabour the point. I hope we've made the point very clearly this afternoon that there are very serious dangers in the role of rentalsman if, in fact, there isn't a more serious effort made to establish neutrality and, in the old phrase, to not suggest that neutrality

[ Page 2726 ]

One of the points which I'm sure all of the MLAs have received in correspondence, is the fact that there seems to be some concern about the lack of appropriate training and expertise and para-legal knowledge, if I can use that phrase, by many of the staff who are involved in the rentalsman's office.

I wonder if the Attorney-General would care to comment as to what degree he hopes to improve either the selection or the training of the kind of people, who are in, admittedly, a new field, and it is a very difficult problem. But if tenants and landlords become involved with the rentalsman's staff, and get the very real feeling that they are not qualified to be doing the job they are doing, this further depreciates the confidence in this important office.

Certainly, while it is an important office on this vote, I would like to say that $43,000 for being the rentalsman is a very nice income, thank you very much, and at a time when we are....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, doctors don't make $43,000, my friend. You show me a general practitioner in this province that makes $43,000, my friend. You show me a general practitioner in this province who takes home $43,000 at the end of the year. No, sir! That's always the stupid kind of interjection we get from that Member. You maybe make $43,000 selling ice cream, but I've never in my life taken home $43,000 for being a doctor.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I would suggest that this particular position of rentalsman, important as it is, is certainly being very well paid by the government. In view of the numerous complaints we have received about the office not being neutral in its actions and the inability of the staff to do their job, I wonder to what degree the Minister will review the whole question of staffing in the rentalsman's office.

He's very busy chatting away to the Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) I guess about doctors' incomes. I hope you're listening, Mr. Attorney-General, and come back with some answers as to staffing in the rentalsman's office.

Another point I would like to raise is the whole question of observers being allowed to sit in on hearings between landlord and tenant when there is a dispute.

For example, I understand that Bruce Yorke has asked for the privilege of sitting in on hearings; this privilege as an observer has been granted. I think one has to raise the question, as it has been raised to me in correspondence, as to whether or not in such a situation this is an influence if only one party has its supporter sitting in the room — whether this does not impair the potential to have an orderly and a completely neutral, unbiased hearing. I'm not even sure, if both parties were allowed to have their team of supporters in the room, that that would necessarily create the correct atmosphere that would result in a calm, reasoned and unprejudiced verdict. But the fact apparently is that Mr. Bruce Yorke has asked and been allowed to sit in on several of these hearings.

I have the correspondence here from the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia wondering if it should be policy that both parties could be present. Even if both parties can be admitted as observers, is this really beneficial and conducive to the kind of atmosphere and the hope that there would not be a great deal of tension at the hearing as there might be when two parties are sitting in a room with their respective supporters. Maybe the Minister would care to comment on that.

The last point: I wondered whether the Minister is concerned with some of the demonstrations we saw on television last night regarding the hotel residents who are concerned about the fact that they are not covered by the rent control nor can they appeal the kind of problem they are having to the rentalsman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, nobody would suggest that the job of the rentalsman is an easy one. But in the year to date — that's 1975 up to the end of April — of the disputes that the office dealt with, 2,709 were settled satisfactorily. That's been the main thrust — to settle things by conciliation if they can. Only 138 went to a rentalsman's order. Of some of the other statistics, prosecutions were only four. I agree, I don't think that letter should have threatened the prosecution. A breach of the Act might be an offence, but our courts are busy enough. There should be better ways to settle those things than the second paragraph you read — 55,000 inquiries by phone.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. I was clearing my throat and there was a good chance for the vote to go through. (Laughter.) But from the greater Vancouver region alone, 55,000 inquiries by phone in that period. For the rest of the province, we're admittedly thin — just 9,000.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time we've had an opportunity of debating this vote. As the Members will notice, the column on the left-hand side of the page is completely blank. I have some questions to direct to the Hon. Attorney-General.

Under the expense section there is fees for services

[ Page 2727 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think they are legal fees. There is a counsel for the commission who is in private practice, Mr. English, and another counsel.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So he's on a per diem basis rather than have a member of your department dealing directly with this matter.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It may be of interest to you, Mr. Chairman, to note that the left-hand column of the page is completely blank. Section 64, of course, of the Landlord and Tenant Act provides for the appropriation of all expenditures up to March 31, 1975.

Now we are dealing with this vote, and other expenses of the department will carry on. I was hoping that fees for services rendered might be the review commission or something because, Mr. Chairman, it's quite clear that the rent review commission, since April 1, 1975, has been carrying on and been paid illegally in this province. We have no estimate for the rent review commission, and the authority under the legislation to pay any of the expenses involved in the Act terminated March 31, 1975. I would think that this must be a very serious oversight on the part of the Attorney-General. I would hope that immediately he would cease any further payments to the rent review commission, and ask them to pay all the money back until we can get this thing straightened out.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

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. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.