[ Page 1401 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Discontinuance of Human Resources programme at Good Hope Lake. Mr. Skelly –– 1401

Possibility of nurses' strike. Mr. Wallace –– 1401

Revelstoke Canyon Dam construction. Mr. King –– 1401

Wood supply quotas. Mr. Gibson –– 1402

Resignations of Vancouver provincial court prosecutors. Mr. Macdonald –– 1403

Eaton's sale of customer lists. Mr. Levi –– 1403

Matter of urgent public importance

Possibility of nurses' strike. Mr. King –– 1404

Routine proceedings

Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977

(Bill 17) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1404

Mrs. Wallace –– 1404

Mr. Gibson –– 1405

Mr. Wallace –– 1405

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1405

Survivorship and Presumption of Death Amendment Act, 1977

(Bill 1) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1405

Mr. Macdonald –– 1406

Mr. Wallace –– 1407

Mr. Lauk –– 1407

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1407

Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1977

(Bill 5) Second reading

Mr. King –– 1408

Mr. Wallace –– 1409

Mr. Rogers –– 1411

Mr. Gibson –– 1411

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1412

Mr. Nicolson –– 1413

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1413

Division on second reading –– 1415

Change of Name Amendment Act, 1977

(Bill 3) Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1416

Ms. Brown –– 1416

Mrs. Jordan –– 1416

Mr. Gibson –– 1417

Mrs. Dailly –– 1417

Mr. Wallace –– 1417

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1417

Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1977

(Bill 13) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1418

Mr. Nicolson –– 1418

Mr. Levi –– 1418

Mr. Lauk –– 1418

Mr. Wallace –– 1418

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1418

Provincial Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1977

(Bill 18) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1419

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977

(Bill 4) Second reading

Mr. Gibson –– 1419

Mr. Lloyd –– 1420

Mrs. Dailly –– 1425

Mr. Lea –– 1428

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1431

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1433

Division on second reading –– 1435

Privilege

Appointment of standing committees. Mr. Lauk –– 1436

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1436

Mr. King –– 1436

Hon. Mrs.McCarthy –– 1436

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, much against his will, I would like to introduce to you today a great friend of mine and a constituent from Kamloops, the first vice-president of the Kamloops Social Credit Party, Mr. Al Quigley.

Oral questions.

DISCONTINUANCE OF HUMAN

RESOURCES PROGRAMME

AT GOOD HOPE LAKE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Some time ago the department funded a programme for a bath house, a social-worker aide and a small passenger transportation van for the Indians at Good Hope Lake. I understand that funding was cut off for this programme since last September. Will the minister take steps to immediately restore funding to that local?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, the funding was temporarily discontinued on the recommendation of the regional director for the area because of some alleged irregularities. The matter is being investigated and a decision will be made in the not-too-distant future.

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the funding has been cut off in that area since last September and there's a desperate need for the services that were provided under that grant. When will the minister come up with a decision on this subject?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's six months!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, we are awaiting a further report from the regional director and we're kept well informed all along.

POSSIBILITY OF NURSES' STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This question is to the Minister of Labour, regarding the prolonged negotiating problems since October, 1975, affecting the registered nurses and the psychiatric nurses employed by the provincial government, and the fact that they have given strike notice, although they are willing to go to arbitration. Since section 17 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act provides for binding arbitration but the Government Employee Relations Bureau has rejected it, will the minister be taking any initiative to bring the parties together with the help of someone from his department?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oak Bay will know, having read section 17 of the Act, that the Minister of Labour has no particular role to play in that matter. However, mediation services were made available to the parties in accordance with provisions of the section. I understand that the mediation officer has been in touch with the parties for the purposes of bringing them back to negotiations across the table, rather than discussing their problems through the press, as has been the case in the past couple of days. I am not criticizing the parties. I'm just saying that there obviously is a willingness to talk, and they are being encouraged to talk directly to each other.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The parties had not been in contact since December of last year. Is the minister not concerned? Mr. Davidson, the spokesman for the Government Employee Relations Bureau, is reported as saying he does not believe in binding arbitration. Really, this is an option provided for the employees in section 17. Does Mr. Davidson's publicized approach not nullify some of the rights of the employees?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the member, having looked at section 17, would have recognized that the right to binding arbitration under the Public Service Labour Relations Act requires the joint request for that technique from both the employer and the employee. It's different than is the case in the Labour Code. As a result, the fact that both parties must agree obviously gives the opportunity for one or the other to disagree.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the representative for the government has said he doesn't believe in it regardless of what's in the legislation. I am trying to make the point: does the minister not consider that it's nullifying to any kind of negotiations if one of the representatives makes that bald statement that he just does not believe in binding arbitration, regardless of whether it is a joint agreement or not in the legislation covering his dispute?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's a repetition of the point that you made in the second supplemental.

REVELSTOKE CANYON DAM CONSTRUCTION

MR. W.S. KING (Revel stoke-Slocan): My question

[ Page 1402 ]

is also to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that the Minister of Labour is the chairman of a cabinet committee constituted to hear appeals regarding the granting of a water licence to construct Revelstoke Canyon Dam. Can the minister inform the House whether or not such cabinet appeal will be an open hearing and the public and those interested in keeping a watching brief will be allowed to attend?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet committee delegated by order-in-council to hear this appeal met yesterday with the parties - the appellants and interested parties. The question of open hearings was considered and they were advised that, as it was a matter coming before the executive council, the same procedures would be applied as with other matters before executive council and that only those who were directly interested would be allowed to be present.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would clarify for the House whether the decision to make this cabinet appeal committee in camera applies only to this particular cabinet committee hearing, or if this is a general Policy with respect to all cabinet appeal committees?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, because the matter is one to be dealt with by the executive council, it applies to all cabinet committee hearings. In many instances, cabinet committee hearings deal with matters which are of very private interest to those involved in the appeal and, as a consequence, I think the reason for that is well recognized.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, it is my understanding that the statute provides for an option to the appellant, either before a cabinet committee hearing or in a hearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which is an open agency where the public might attend. Can the minister tell me what distinction he draws between the agency of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and a cabinet appeal committee?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member is wrong in the way in which he reads the statute. At any rate, if there were a choice of appeals, the appellants have made their choice.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the members to section 38 of the Water Act, which gives the right of appeal, which is to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The only right to appeal to the court is under section 39, and that deals with matters where the comptroller has cancelled a licence. Then it's to the court of appeal.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): A supplementary to the Minister of Labour: would not the minister consider that when the cabinet committee is adjudicating upon the rights of parties it's unlike its ordinary business, and it is a denial of natural justice to close the doors of a hearing of that kind to public and press?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: As a final supplementary, there is just one more matter of clarification that I would appreciate from the minister. Am I to understand then that press is also barred from the cabinet appeal committee hearing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closed government!

MR. SPEAKER: I've taken the final supplementary and I have recognized the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

AN HON. MEMBER: Star Chamber!

WOOD SUPPLY QUOTAS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. As a careful student of his department, I would ask him if he is aware of a case in the Lac La Hache PSYU where a small 15-man mill has apparently had to shut down due to lack of timber supply and lack of access to quota and where, according to the same report, only something like 12,000 cubic feet is required. Will he take steps to investigate and remedy this?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the case and it has been a matter of concern. This ministry, for the better part of a year now.... There are ways of alleviating this particular mill's wood supply problems and these moves are being made.

MR. GIBSON: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would investigate as well a reported comment of one of his officials with respect to an unallocated increment of 2.9 million cubic feet. The official was reported to have said: "It's all going to the big guys." Could he report back to the House whether that is, in fact, the case? The three large operators there are the only ones getting a shot at this unallocated timber.

[ Page 1403 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The 2,900 cunits of wood which the member refers to are being allocated to recognized applicants who have a demonstrated need and the ability to use the wood. They do have, under the terms of forest policy which has been in effect for a number of years, a certain protection in the allocation of this type of wood by being recognized applicants. This particular mill has been operating for a number of years on private wood. This particular mill is unable to compete effectively for either private or Crown wood. There is nothing precluding this particular mill from bidding on these 2,900 cunits as it is put up for sale. However, they will probably have a better chance of receiving the district forester's 5 per cent sales on a short-term basis.

MR. GIBSON: As a further supplementary, do I understand the minister to say that this is third-band wood and not quota, and that this small mill will have an equal shot at it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This is not specifically third-band wood. The definition of third-band wood is rather a vague thing in any event, as the member well knows, Mr. Speaker. This wood is being put up for sale and there are recognized applicants for it who are established operators who have demonstrated the need and the ability to use the wood.

RESIGNATIONS OF VANCOUVER

PROVINCIAL COURT PROSECUTORS

MR. MACDONALD: Is the Attorney-General aware that three prosecutors in the Vancouver provincial court are resigning and 10 more have signified an intention to resign because of the failure of the government, through its Treasury Board, to improve their salaries and conditions, as promised?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Member, in response to that question, I'd like to say that last week the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and I received a most comprehensive brief from the criminal section of the Canadian Bar Association. We had a very fruitful discussion with them. They made some very valid points and the matter is under current review.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this matter has carried on now for a year and a half and a commitment has been broken and the costs of fee-for-service counsel have swollen in the Attorney-General's budget out of all proportion, when will the Attorney-General see that the commitment that was made to these prosecutors is lived up to?

HON. MR. GARDOM: As 1 responded to the hon. member a moment ago, it is under current review. I'd like to underline the word -current.-

EATON'S SALE OF CUSTOMER LISTS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, Mr. Speaker: can the minister inform the House what remedies he is prepared to take on behalf of the consumer in respect to the Eaton's sale of their customer lists to various private operations?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'd be very obliged to you if you would instruct the member as to the proper name of my ministry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: In answer to the member's question. . . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: 1 can even remember your name, Mr. Member, although it's very difficult, judging by your performance.

To the member, Mr. Speaker, my ministry has evaluated this situation and has come reluctantly to the conclusion that they have not violated any of British Columbia's statutes. So 1 have nothing that 1 can do other than to comment publicly that 1 think that the actions of the store were clearly wrong.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps before 1 start, Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister will tell us what the name of his ministry is. It's your ministry. You should tell us. 1 keep getting the "corporate- in the way because it's the "corporate" that is emphasized.

MR. SPEAKER: It's Consumer and Corporate Affairs, if 1 may assist you, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: My God! We've woken up the capitalists, Mr. Speaker. My God, we've woken them up.

Would the minister be prepared to make a recommendation to the government in respect to an amendment to the Privacy Act which is presently on the books in respect to this matter, in order to protect the consumers?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under active consideration by my department at this time.

[ Page 1404 ]

POSSIBILITY OF NURSES' STRIKE

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The matter is the decision of the public service nurses to serve strike notice on the government as a result of the Government Employee Relations Bureau's refusal to agree to binding arbitration to settle the dispute between the nurses and the government. This matter could be resolved immediately by the House passing the following motion, Mr..Speaker. The motion, moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and seconded by myself, moves that the government instruct the Government Employee Relations Bureau to agree to the public service nurses' request to submit the issues involved in the 72-hour strike notice to binding arbitration.

Speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker, I would point out....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I would remind the hon. member that you've handed me a statement of your concern. That does not mean that the motion is in order or out of order, and that would mean that until it has been ruled upon, you don't speak to the motion, hon. member.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I certainly agree with your finding. I suggest that the motion could not be debated until the motion is put and I expect that to take place within the next few seconds, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, speaking to the motion of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, it has been held on many previous occasions that when a matter is considered to be in the realm of the ordinary administration of the law, it is out of order under our standing orders to request or allow an emergency debate.

However, I'll reserve my decision on your motion without prejudicing your position, and determine as quickly as possible the motion as it was put to the House and see if it does qualify, hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in order to assist the Speaker in arriving at his conclusion, I would point out that this matter involved directly in the motion is not within the normal scope of the law. There is no law, as the Minister of Labour has so eloquently pointed out in response to a question from the member for Oak Bay, which would& empower the government under current statutes to submit this , matter to compulsory arbitration. In the absence of such authority under the statute, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the motion is quite in order.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank you for your observation, hon. member. I will certainly take that into consideration when 1 review your request and bring back a decision as soon as possible.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, Bill 17, the Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977, in principle deals with three main items: basically, the procedure for appeal by a participant under the income assurance programme -that would be dealt with by regulation; the second item would be recourse for the administration of the programme to recover improper payments that were made either by legal proceedings or by withholding future payments to a participant; the third item is that the original Act did not make any reference to penalties regarding infractions to the regulations, and this addition allows for penalties under the Summary Convictions Act.

Mr. Speaker, those are primarily the changes that are made. You could possibly classify them as housekeeping amendments. The Federation of Agriculture in discussions with staff over the past year is certainly in agreement with these types of amendments. With that, Mr. Speaker, 1 would move that the bill be now read a second time.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Certainly, as the minister has pointed out, this appears to be merely a housekeeping bill. We in the official opposition are not opposed to the bill. Whether or not it is going to have any far-reaching effects on the farmers involved in the plan is another question, but we have no really grave concerns about it.

We have some minor concerns as to the introduction of the clause 1 (b) , which provides for the Summary Convictions Act applying to farmers involved in this farm income assurance scheme. It seems that it may be some small infringement on civil liberties, or could be so used. However, we are not opposing the Act. We are quite prepared to go along with these amendments, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1405 ]

MR. GIBSON: Like the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, Mr. Speaker, I have no particular difference with the provision for appeal, the provision f o r recovery and certain penalties for misrepresentation. It's important to have something of this kind in an Act which is potentially subject to some abuse and provides for a good deal of cash flow in this province. So as much as we might regret these kinds of penalties, they're necessary in things like the Income Tax Act, they're necessary in things like the marketing board Act and I think we probably have to have them here.

I'm sorry, on the other hand, that the Act which is amending the Farm Income Assurance Act doesn't give some attention to the very basic role of that Act in agriculture in this province. The manner in which it is the other side of the coin on the subject of marketing boards and the means through which some of the things that the public is concerned about on marketing boards could be discharged without doing undue violence to . the concept of the boards themselves. I wish that had been in there, but it's not, so one can't discuss it any length. I wish that it provided for a royal commission into food costs in this province, but it doesn't, so one can't discuss that at any length, other than to deplore the fact that it's not there.

MR. WALLACE: I just wish to add my support to the amendments, which are fairly straightforward and seem perfectly reasonable. However, could the minister tell us in winding up this debate whether there are any further intentions to deal with farm income assurance during this session of the Legislature, for the simple reason that I know he's had meetings with 'the industry? They've expressed great concern that they be consulted as to any substantial changes in the Farm Income Assurance Act. This bill is very simple and straightforward, but the whole issue of farm income assurance is a very fundamental one. In view of the public controversy to which the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has alluded, and the fact that the consumer is very interested to know about the future of farm income assurance, can we anticipate something more fundamental in the way of legislation?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the false information, I think, that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano mentioned, it is, Mr. Member, very minor. There's very little abuse in regard to the participation in this Act. Nevertheless, the safeguard should be there, and it is.

I concur with your comments regarding the investigation into food prices from the farm gate to the dinner plate, as has been mentioned. That, as you know, we are dealing with with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) and myself, and we hope to have some recommendations on that fact.

To the member for Oak Bay, at this time there will be no substantial change to the Farm Income Assurance Act. As you know, one of the first commodity groups comes up at the end of their five-year term in 1978. The matter will be reviewed with regard to farm income assurance with the industry, the commodity groups, the Federation of Agriculture, and in 1978 we will have to deal with the programme itself. At the present time, there are two new commodity groups that have come under this programme, namely raspberries and potatoes, which are ongoing programmes.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I would move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered.

MR. MACDONALD: It may never pass.

MR. SPEAKER: We have to get through second reading first.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought I moved that at the beginning. I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 17, Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It's not always going to be that easy.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I know.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I hope I have as much success as you did.

Second reading of Bill 1, Mr. Speaker.

SURVIVORSHIP AND PRESUMPTION

OF DEATH AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that would be best considered during committee. I would like to say that the subject has been on the agenda of the Uniform Law Conference for many, many years and was finally completed and recommended for enactment at its meeting in Yellowknife last summer. Our own statute is very similar to the uniform Act in respect of making a determination of the presumption of death, but, Mr. Speaker, our Act is silent about what should happen to the assets of a presumed deceased should he or she arrive back on the scene alive. Sometimes,

[ Page 1406 ]

truth being stranger than fiction, this does happen. So the uniform Act dealt with the problem essentially by providing that if there are any undistributed assets at the time the person "comes back to life, " then he should have them for himself. Any assets that have been already distributed would be deemed to be unrecoverable by the legally reincarnated person. Is that clear?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to go into some of the clauses in the bill, but I want to speak a little bit about some of the principles that we're talking about in this legislation. We do not have in the province of British Columbia any medical, ethical, or legal standards covering the right to die of the terminally ill patient.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's not really in order.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, it is, because we're here determining when life is to be artificially prolonged.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no.

MR. MACDONALD: I point out that - and I don't want to go into the sections in detail at this time, Mr. Speaker - we should establish those principles. They have been established now, as of January I of this year, in the state of California, and they should be embodied within the sections of this bill that we're now considering.

I notice that the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, Anthony Crosland, through his wife, refused respirator aid or brain surgery in a case where the possibility of recovery without irreversible brain damage was clearly apparent.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you realize that you're discussing something which is not really a part of the principle of this bill. This bill deals with assets of people under a presumption of death. It doesn't have anything to do with medical problems which could result in the debate that you're now engaging in.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, it deals with the question of when a person is to be declared legally dead. As a necessary corollary to that, it should deal with the question of protection of doctors and hospitals in the case of their failure - in accordance with the will of the patient - to provide artificial means of preserving life. I'm not going to make my point at any great length, Mr. Speaker, but I do think that when you come to the question of determining that, you should deal with these very vital questions of the rights which are now totally without foundation in the province of British Columbia - the right of the doctor to protection, the right of the hospital to protection, the right of persons to be protected against homicide charges in the case of a terminally ill patient - none of which is provided for in the province of British Columbia. Instead, the Attorney-General comes along with a bill such as this and says: "I will now point out under this bill that a court can determine the exact moment of death."

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's the former statute.

MR. MACDONALD: I say that that is a question that should be inherent before we pass this kind of a bill. I intend to discuss it further when we come, Mr. Speaker, to consideration of sections such as section 6 of this bill. I think it's time we gave attention to what they've done in the state of California, where the patient has the right to provide a living will whereby he makes the choice whether or not his or her life should be artificially prolonged.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: That's the kind of question that should be addressed in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not part of the principle of this bill, as you well know, hon. member. You're now engaging in a form of debate that has nothing to do with the principle of the bill before us. It may be a principle of some other bill which may at some time come before the House, but it is not part of this bill, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll just finish by saying this. The present bill that's before the House is one where a court can declare the moment of death. I say that we should give consideration in this Legislature to the concept of death with dignity, which other jurisdictions have been discussing, so that life is not prolonged against the wishes of the patient concerned by artificial means where recovery is impossible and the damage is irreversible. That's the principle that should be written into this bill - the right to death with dignity.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Attorney-General if the presumption of death and sudden reappearance applies to political parties as well as persons. (Laughter.)

I agree with the hon. first member for Vancouver East in the important questions of ethics and law that he has raised, and agree with him as well that they are

[ Page 1407 ]

best discussed in committee of this bill.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very clearly written bill, and with the greatest of respect to my legal friend down the way here, I can't see that that in any way relates to the very highly complicated and very important issue of determining the moment of death. As I read this bill - and hope the Attorney-General will correct me if I'm wrong -it deals with people who have disappeared, for lack of a better word, gone astray or in some way or other disappeared from human sight. Whether they disappeared down a mine shaft, or under the surface of the sea, or wherever, they're not visible and available to determine their presence as alive persons. With great respect, I suggest that that's a very different issue from determining when a person is dead.

At the same time I don't want to leave the impression for a moment that I don't share the member for Vancouver East's concern about the need for legislation in that other area. But some of the language in this bill where it talks about a person who has been absent and not heard from.... It sounds like some of the members of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) says, it's even worse than when they're present and not heard from.

But anyway I think that the bill is very clear and it seems to me to make a great deal of sense that if any person is found not to have died and there are undistributed assets, he or she should inherit them as they would normally have done. On the other hand, I think it makes a lot of sense that those who have inherited previously on the assumption that the person was dead should have the legal right to retain the inheritance that came to them as a result of a decision.

What bothers me about this bill is that there is a phrase somewhere - and we'll go into it in committee - which leaves it completely vague as to the length of time that the person has been absent and not heard from. Perhaps we can get into that on that particular section where one can apply to the court to state that the person has not been heard from - and I forget the exact phrase - for a certain length of time, but the time is not determined. It sounds a rather vague and wide-open provision, but we will get into that in committee. But the basic principle of the bill seems to me to be both obvious and very commendable.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise only in this debate to assure the House that there is no truth to those scandalous rumours circulating in the corridors that the opposition is going to support this bill to enable the orderly distribution of the estate of the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . The rumours of his death are greatly exaggerated. I know, because I've been passing these rumours along.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, we should call this the Resumption of Death Act.

There are a couple of points that 1 should raise in committee, and 1 won't do so now, one of them being (laughter) where it states: where a person who was presumed to be dead is found by the court to be alive.--- That seems to me an offence against the College of Physicians and Surgeons Act.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, we make mistakes, too.

MR. LAUK: 1 know some judges regard themselves to be very skilled, but ...

HON. MR. GARDOM: That goes to the court of appeals.

MR. LAUK: The court of appeals. That's different. I thought it was only the supreme court.

There's a serious question 1 have on the principle of the bill. Is it, or is it not, true? Could the Attorney-General respond when he closes the debate? We are one of the first provinces to pass this statute, and indeed, rather than making it more uniform, we are disuniforming the law, as it were. Or have 1 been misinformed? Are other provinces passing or have they passed similar statutes to make the presumptions across the country more uniform?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, first of all, it's very obvious from the legislation - in response to the third member for Vancouver East - that the bill has nothing to do with prolonging life. As the hon. Conservative member mentioned, it obviously deals with a situation where, say, people fail to return home at the end of the day. There was a boating incident, or a fellow happened to be driving a truck and the truck went over the end of an esplanade, and it disappeared, and the individual has not returned. Then it is possible to make an application to the court, obtaining from the court an order that the individual is presumed to have died. So, following that order, Mr. Speaker, there then was a distribution of assets.

This is merely to take care of the situation where an individual has, in fact, not died, returned to the

[ Page 1408 ]

scene, and would have a claim against those assets which have not been distributed.

I would like to thank all of the members for their contribution to the debate. In response to the first member for Vancouver Centre, I could not give you a precise answer today as to whether other provinces have taken the step, although I can say that Alberta was giving consideration to it and Newfoundland was. I gather that at this point in time Saskatchewan and Ontario don't have any immediate plans to enact it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I did move second reading when I initiated my remarks.

Motion approved.

Bill 1, Survivorship and Presumption of Death Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 5.

POLLUTION CONTROL (1967)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. KING: I have listened to the remarks of other members, particularly the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) . I was wondering if I could obtain from the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) some indication that he intended to work with some of the environmental groups which are interested in the province.

I noticed in his responses that he talked about some dialogue and some representations from SPEC and some of the other environmental groups. But I wonder if the minister has been consciously attempting to set up committees to actively work with those environmental groups to gain the benefit of their input in the framing of legislation, in the strengthening of the Pollution Control Act, and so on. It seems to me that many of these groups have, through their interest primarily, and through attracting many professional people, gained a great degree of expertise, particularly regarding certain aspects of environmental pollution and of the threats from new toxic chemicals that are daily being introduced in a variety of enterprises in the province. This is all quite aside from the subject of oil spills, which I suppose is the major preoccupation seemingly facing the minister's department at the moment.

I do hope that the minister does not view these groups as some adversarial hurdle to be cleared by his ministry in terms of framing more effective pollution control laws, considering the overall environmental protection of the province, and so on. 1 think that would be a mistake. 1 would certainly like the minister to give a firm indication that he is prepared to recognize and work with these groups, and that he, in fact, values their expertise and the knowledge that they can bring to assist his department in recognizing and identifying weaknesses in the Acts in terms of their practical field application.

You know, Mr. Speaker, legislation is fine, but in many respects it's rather passive. The real test in terms of the workability of legislation usually comes about a year after the statute is born when the field officers - those having authority to give effect to this passive document - have had an opportunity to apply it in the field. Again, Mr. Speaker, I draw to the minister's attention the benefit of involving lay people, particularly those who have a recognized expertise in the area. They can make a great contribution in identifying weaknesses and moving swiftly to plug holes in statutes that allow practices to continue that are detrimental to the environment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, 1 don't wish to interrupt you unnecessarily, but when you last spoke you occupied 14 minutes on the floor. You now have 26 minutes left.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 don't intend to use all that time, Mr. Speaker; I'll be quite brief. This is one of the areas I wish the minister would respond to when he closes debate on Bill 5.

The other point that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it seems to me that the Pollution Control Act needs more current scrutiny than that which it has received over the past number of years. I think it was 1967 when the Act was introduced that is now being amended, and that's a considerable period of time. Again, 1 point out that daily there are new processes being introduced in the province, largely in the industrial realm, employing all kinds of new and toxic chemicals that perhaps were unheard of when this Act first was introduced to the House. Therefore the Act, in all probability, would not be appropriate to embrace and cover the realm of areas of concern that we now face and that we now witness.

So 1 think, Mr. Speaker, the minister could provide the House with some greater feeling of security if he would also indicate that the Act will be opened up and reviewed on a more frequent basis than has been the case in the past.

1 do not offer this as any criticism of the minister. He is a new one in terms of that portfolio and 1 recognize that. But despite the person who happens to occupy the ministry, Mr. Speaker, I think this would be a good practice and one that would augur well for the future of the province in environmental terms.

[ Page 1409 ]

Mr. Speaker, we are disappointed in terms of the precise impact on the amendments offered by the minister in Bill 5, which is now before the House. As the member for Alberni so capably pointed out, it's very, very pale. It's anemic in terms of coming to grips with the major problems that face the province at the moment. Of course, those major ones are with respect to - I wouldn't say the possibility, Mr. Speaker, I would say the imminence of - major oil spills off our coastal waters.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Alberni made the point, and made it well, that the best form of pollution control is preventive action by the Ministry of the Environment to halt processes and practices which hold a grave danger in terms of their potential to pollute the air and the waters of our province, and certainly the off-coast area, which not only threatens the recreational aspect of the coastal waters but certainly our very significant fishery. I think the best thing the minister could do in that regard, Mr. Speaker, would not be with respect to any anemic attempt to amend this bill but would rather be with respect to a decisive and strong statement from his ministry and indeed from the government with respect to their opposition to the development of large supertankers plying the coastal waters off British Columbia's shores. That would be the best thing.

Mr. Speaker, it makes sense not only in terms of the effectiveness of pollution control but I draw a comparison between this -approach and that which is advocated in the modern area of health where, I'm sure, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) would agree, too. The most effective and the cheapest approach to good health care for the province is an effective system of preventive care. Certainly that is true from the standpoint of the taxpayers' dollars in the health area; it's equally true with respect to the environment. And, Mr. Speaker, they are related areas. They are very closely related areas, because the quality of the water we drink, the quality of the air we breathe - the assurance that they are free from toxic ingredients - is very fundamental to the health of our people in the province as well. But certainly in terms of the cost it is much cheaper in the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars to head off threatened jeopardy by oil tankers and so on that it is to attempt to clean up after.

It has been pointed out to the Minister of the Environment that neither in the federal realm of government, nor in the provincial, are there adequate appropriations to come to grips in any real way with a major oil spill if and when one does occur off the coast of British Columbia. There is nothing in this Act, Mr. Speaker, that really comes to grips with tho~e basic problems, so we are certainly not enthusiastic about the amendments. In fact we feel that it's a very, very weak bill and I doubt that we are going to be able to give any degree of support to this kind of statute.

MR. WALLACE: Any positive steps that this government puts forward to deal with the imminence of oil spills is most welcome. I mentioned in an earlier debate, and it's just worth repeating, that in the first nine months of 1976 there were more tankers and more tonnage of oil spilled around the world than in any previous year. All the indications are that this continuation of an increasing number of oil spills and the addition to our seas of ever-increasing amounts of oil will continue.

The question, of course, is whether this bill goes as far as it might go, because it essentially deals with conscripting people to help deal with any pollution or any continuing pollution. I notice all the spokesmen for the opposition parties have zeroed in on oil pollution almost to the exclusion of other possible types of pollution, but I think that's because it quite clearly is uppermost in our minds for the very obvious reason, agreed to by, I think, all members of this House, that whether we like it or not, the oil tankers will be sailing down the west coast in a matter of months. So the bill is useful and it is a step in the right direction, but it is also somewhat disappointing that we don't have some more farsighted legislation incorporating efforts to enter into agreements or negotiations with both the Canadian federal government and the federal authorities in the United States to try and work out some kind of regulations that not only look good on paper but are meaningful, and which are applied. As the minister probably knows, the commitment that President Nixon gave by way of his secretary, Rogers Morton, back in 1973 -that in fact it would be regulatory for all the tankers from Valdez to have certain absolute characteristics of double-bottomed hulls and segregated ballast, and many other preventive measures - is not about to be fulfilled,

One might say: "Well, what's the point of entering into negotiations or agreements with federal jurisdictions if in fact the other party doesn't keep its word?" Well, we know that President Nixon wasn't very good at keeping his word, but that shouldn't deter us in the new situation from trying to negotiate with President Carter. He seems to be a man of greater principle and a man who is concerned about the human condition perhaps to a greater degree than President Nixon, whose government has not kept the commitment regarding the ways in which tankers could be made safer and the ways in which they could navigate some of these difficult waters with a greater measure of safety.

More specifically, on the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, there is rather a disturbing statement by Captain Young of the Canadian Coast Guard as recently as February 22 in The Vancouver Sun. He

[ Page 1410 ]

talked about the fact that there is clean-up equipment on the B.C. coast. He said, in fact, that there is now $1 million worth of clean-up equipment, but the important thing he said in relation to this bill was that he "was not impressed by the capability of mechanical equipment, judging from its performance at major spills in Spain and Japan."

Now the minister already mentioned that observers had gone to Spain and to the spill in the Delaware River, and the minister emphasized that the speed of response is crucial, but when we read of someone such as the regional marine emergency officer of the Canadian Coast Guard stating that he really doesn't think the equipment can be of great value, as evidenced by spills in Spain and Japan, 1 wonder if, in winding up the debate, the minister could give us his view on the statements by Captain Young.

One of the other statements made by Captain Young deals essentially with the principle of the bill, and that is manpower involved in cleaning up a spill. Captain Young also stated that 232,000 people took part in the Inland Sea cleanup in Japan when 9.4 million gallons were spilled. Captain Young makes the point that it would be impossible to round up that number of people on the northern B.C. coast even if there was legislation empowering the Coast Guard to order men onto the job. Of course, that's exactly what this legislation is preparing to do: to give statutory power to conscript people to deal with cleanup.

He went on to say that he couldn't see much hope of success in commandeering people because cleaning up oil is a filthy job and he asked if the people would really work. So the bill is a step towards trying to provide men and resources to deal with spills when they occur. While 1 wouldn't unduly stress the limitations of the bill, I think it has to be made plain in our debate that it is the intention of having some of these resources, the possibility of a speedy response to a spill and some equipment stockpiled to deal with it.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the mechanical devices presently available are really of little substantial impact in dealing with a spill of any size at all. If you're talking about conscripting people as individuals to clean up spills, experience in Japan shows that you can have many thousands of people who still have a relatively puny effect on dealing with the mess. In fact, Captain Young, to quote him again, said:

"If there is a big spill on the coast of British Columbia in winter, little could be done to clean it up. About the best we could manage would be to get the tanker off the rocks and off load her, to contain or recover as much oil as possible. But there is really very little one can do on the west coast. We have good capabilities for using chemical dispersants sprayed from ships but in winter we would probably leave things to Mother Nature."

He also made the comment that 1 think many of us have made in this House this session, Mr. Speaker, that few British Columbians have any idea how severe the weather can be on the northern coast of British Columbia. He mentioned that a 20,000-ton freighter which ran aground on the rocks off the coast was completely broken up in heavy seas within one week.

So 1 am happy to support this bill. I'm distressed that the situation is as serious as it is. Even putting the best possible interpretation on the evidence available it's quite clear that we will have spills. They will be serious, both in amount and in the damage they do. And even with this kind of legislation - to conscript personnel and call upon mechanical devices and whatever other devices are available - we seem to be relatively impotent to have any real capacity to clean up an oil spill of any size at all.

1 know from even the very limited small oil spill which, believe it or not, ended up in Oak Bay on one occasion, there was a hassle over jurisdiction as to where the oil came from in the first place, and part of this bill is an attempt to relate financial responsibility to the party who spilled the oil in the first place. The federal government apparently accepts responsibility at sea but as soon as the oil hits the shoreline the municipality is responsible to clean up the mess.

In winding up the debate on this bill, since it clearly implies the principle of allocating financial responsibility to the polluter, 1 wonder if the minister could tell us how he's making out in the long, ongoing negotiations with the federal government -and the municipalities, presumably - as to just how the cost of cleaning up spills will be shared, for example, when you cannot clearly define who the polluter was in the first place. All I know is that municipalities just do not have the financial resources to try to clean up a spill of any appreciable size or even a relatively small one. As 1 recall in Oak Bay the cost was several hundred dollars or $ 1,000 or somewhere in that neighbourhood. Nevertheless, it was one way of alerting municipal politicians in this area to the fact that these events come very close to home when the oil finishes up on the beach of your own particular municipality. The fact is that legislation such as the bill we're now discussing makes it very clear that the costs involved could be enormous and certainly well beyond the capacity of any municipality to deal with on its own once the oil hits the shoreline of that municipality.

So what perhaps this bill demonstrates more than anything else, Mr. Speaker, is the need for the maximum possible effort to co-operate with the American jurisdictions and with our own federal government in developing the most sophisticated type

[ Page 1411 ]

of navigational supervision off the coast and through our inland waters. I already mentioned in an earlier debate that we have such a system called ECAREG on the east coast, and I am wondering if, since our debate a week or two ago, the minister can give us any more hopeful information about where we're at in the progress towards implementing the same computerized navigational supervision on the west coast.

But it is in these areas of safer tankers, more highly trained crews, supervision of the navigation of these ships around our shores in exactly the same way that airplanes are supervised in their comings and goings into large airports where the greatest initiative of this government must lie. This bill is really a very small and, unfortunately, almost an insignificant part of what needs to be done in trying to deal with the matter of oil spills off our shores. Unfortunately, such potential is only months away.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): You recall two summers ago there were two freighters coming in to the port of Vancouver, one leaving and one entering. They rammed each other and as a result of that there was quite a lot of bunker C spilled in the waters of English Bay which proceeded up Howe Sound and onto the beaches of the city of Vancouver.

One of the things that was learned from that tragic accident was that while volunteers were extremely important, one key ingredient in cleaning up oil spills was a very simple substance which we have a lot of in British Columbia - peat moss. When Dr. McTaggart-Cowan supervised the recovery of oil from the oil spill from the tanker Arrow which ran aground in Chedabucto Bay, they found that volunteers and conscriptees were required, but again peat moss was the main ingredient. I just thought I'd bring this point up during this pollution bill because when an oil spill occurs at sea the only way you can control it at all is by dropping peat moss on it. It sounds difficult but it really isn't.

The Canadian armed forces have a number of aircraft which have rear-door loading capabilities and which can be opened in flight for dropping things. They have a squadron based at Comox and one based at Edmonton. Buffaloes are in Comox and C-130 Hercules are in Edmonton. In both cases, should an oil spill occur off the west coast, bombing or saturation of the oil with peat moss at least makes the object of cleaning it up considerably easier. The peat moss is attracted to the oil, as any of the people who have been involved in oil cleanups can tell you, and it makes the subject considerably easier to handle. The trouble is, I am not sure that this bill actually allows you to conscript members of the Canadian armed forces. Nonetheless, I wanted to make the suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. GIBSON: As several people have said in this debate, prevention is of the essence. The hon. first member for Vancouver South has just given us a good statement of some of the things that can be done after an oil spill. But cleanup, I think, is a last-ditch effort. The hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) quoted Captain Young of the Canadian Coast Guard in his article in The Vancouver Sun on February 22. There is one segment he didn't quote when he speaks of the latest mechanical equipment. Young says:

"I don't think much of some of it, anyway. For example, suppose we had a loss of 20,000 tons of oil, Well, if that equipment gets rid of 20 to 30 tons an hour, you're doing damn well. That will give you an idea of how effective it is. "

In other words, a large spill is the kind of thing we want to avoid at any cost, or almost any cost.

Because of that question of prevention, I want to suggest to the minister a position that I think he should take on a development which has come before this province today, and that is the announcement by Trans Mountain Pipe Line confirming earlier stories that it is their intention to seek authority to bring tankers into Cherry Point, offload there, take the oil, pipe it up the Trans Mountain pipeline to Edmonton for about two-thirds of the time and send it back to the American midwest where the oil is required.

These oil pipeline questions are very complex, but some are so obviously against the interests of British Columbia that I think it would be a good thing if they were nipped in the bud right away and the confusion cleared away. There would be a great many more landings at Cherry Point under this scheme. The press reports make reference to 260,000 average barrels a day imported through Cherry Point. If I've done my arithmetic right, this would mean a 100,000-ton tanker every three days or so - roughly 32,000 or 33,000 tons of oil a day coming into Cherry Point.

Mr. Speaker, that is just an additional hazard in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, and therefore the beaches of the lower mainland, that is unnecessary. One of the alarming things to me in the press report is this paragraph: "While not spelling out details, Hall" - he's the president of Trans Mountain - "also indicated that eventually a much larger pipeline' could be built parallel to the existing pipeline which could accommodate much larger flows of oil to the east."

What does this mean? Instead of a 100,000-ton tanker every three days, does that mean that we're going to see a 100,000-ton tanker every day, or two a day, into Cherry Point with the statistical probability of a spill going up all the time? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you can make things as foolproof as you like, but one of these days it will so happen that the radar goes out and it's a dirty, stormy night and the

[ Page 1412 ]

captain's down below and the pilot's got the flu and is not operating quite right and something goes wrong. The next thing you know, you've got an oil spill. As the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) knows well, every precaution is made in our society to prevent airline accidents, but from time to time they do happen, and from time to time tanker accidents will happen and, therefore, prevention is of the essence. That's why I ask the minister to make the strongest possible representations, in every way within his power, to stand up in the House today and say: "We are against this latest initiative of Trans Mountain Pipe Line."

Mr. Speaker, it is the nuttiest idea to come down the pipe in a long time anyway. You know what it is? It's sending the oil one way through the pipeline on Monday and Tuesday, and sending it the other way through the pipeline on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, more or less, with a bit of time to clear the pipe in between. In other words, you're moving some oil from Cherry Point via Vancouver to Edmonton, and you're moving other oil back from Edmonton to Vancouver when you could be moving a barrel of oil across the street, but, of course, that wouldn't keep the Trans Mountain pipeline full. That's why this whole scheme has been devised.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Sure, there's a question of modification of refineries to accept different kinds of oil - the modification of the Cherry Point refineries to accept Alberta oil, or the modification of the Vancouver refineries to accept Alaska oil - but they can accept the same kind of oil and you don't need those sorts of two-way flows.

How did this come about? It's a desperation move by Trans Mountain. They split from the Kitimat pipeline group for reasons of their own, which may or may not have been good - I'm not aware of what they are. But this idea is just incredible and the minister ought to come out against it because the inevitable upshot is the landing of a lot of tankers at Cherry Point. Now if the company wants to bring its tankers into Port Angeles, if the Americans - the people of Washington state - agree that Port Angeles is the better solution for them, as I believe it is, as well as for us, then we have a different question. Then the problem isn't quite so serious. The Port Angeles location is one which is environmentally much safer. Then you can carry on by pipeline from there, whether the Americans want to bring a lot of oil across their northern states or whether they simply want to supply Cherry Point with it and so on, that's their business, but you're in a safer situation.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that hearings have to be held on the whole issue. It's a continental problem. The government of British Columbia has to have a position. There are a lot of things that have to be considered. Maybe the direction of Albertan oil should be made more westward than it is now. Maybe we should go back to supplying the Cherry Point refineries from Alberta in exchange for swapped U.S. oil on the east coast, thereby making it unnecessary for any tanker landings into Cherry Point at all, as virtually used to be the case in the past when those. refineries were supplied by Alberta oil. The quid pro quo of that would be that Ontario would be fed by oil landed on the eastern seaboard through existing oil ports, up to Montreal, and then reverse the Sarnia-to-Mo nt real pipeline to feed Ontario from the east coast, all through existing facilities with little in the way of new dangers.

The United States midwest is another question. Kitimat is one of the possibilities, and that's one of the things I've said this government must hold hearings on. But the U.S. midwest can be fed in other ways. It can be fed by the northern tier pipeline and landed at Port Angeles. It can be fed by reversing existing natural gas pipelines converted to oil which open onto the California coast. It can be fed by an expansion of the U.S. tapline system up from the Gulf coast. There are all kinds of possibilities.

But what I say to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there's one possibility that ought to be foreclosed as far as this government is concerned today, the very day of the announcement. That is this crazy idea of bringing a tremendously greater number of tankers into Cherry Point for the purpose of running oil back and forth in two directions in a single pipeline - running it one way one day and another way the next -just for the purpose of keeping the pipeline full. That, to me, is an offence against any kind of sanity, not only in environmental terms, It's even crazy economically, but environmentally it is outstandingly nutty. I ask the minister to stand up in the House right now in closing the debate and say: "I'm against that and my government's against it."

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I've given this bill quite a bit of thought and quite frankly, I'm not going to be supporting it. I will not be supporting it because there's absolutely nothing in the bill that is not already contained in the Emergency Programme Act and the Emergency Powers Act. Under those bills the province of B.C. has all the authority that they need to attack any emergency problem in British Columbia, regardless of the nature of it, whether it be caused by man's accidents or acts of God. They have all the authority that the province needs to arrange agreements with federal agencies and agencies in the United States, the power to conscript and the power to make use of any facilities or equipment, public or private, which may be available.

The point that has been made by many, many

[ Page 1413 ]

people here is that if the government had the broadest and the most sweeping powers ever imaginable to mobilize all resources available, publicly or privately, in British Columbia, we could not possibly tackle the problems that we may have through a supertanker or even a modest tanker-load disaster which may happen in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the eventuality that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has been speaking about, that eventuality is here today. It has happened today. The Victoria Times says that Atlantic Richfield and Trans Mountain Pipe Line have indeed signed a $125 million agreement to transport Alaska oil from Cherry Point to Alberta through British Columbia, and in turn to bring Alberta oil back to British Columbia and to Cherry Point. That has happened today. We already have the terrible spectre that we may well have not just at some point in the distant future a major tanker accident possibly as close to Victoria as Brotchie Ledge or Trial Island. That could happen at any time.

For those reasons we are losing our options to go to Neah Bay or to the west of Port Angeles, we are losing our options of moving our oil by rail from Alaska to the North Slope. Those options are being taken away from us, yet this government is not opposing those eventualities. I am going to be opposing this bill.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): 1, too, will be opposing this bill because I think that it is dangerous to have it appear that the government is concerned and appear that it is doing something about the threat of oil spills when, in fact, it has been so silent.

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the Kitimat oil pipeline, it is my understanding that a simulator study has been done in the Netherlands using a computer and a ship simulator into which all of the information pertaining to the Douglas Channel has been fed: the I 10 mile-per-hour winds; the currents; the narrow channel; the two 90-degree turns; and the I 20-degree turn that is required. When this simulation was done using experienced captains and experienced pilots, out of all the runs 50 per cent ran aground under the conditions. I think that it's absolute folly to proceed, to even countenance, the prospect of a Kitimat oil pipeline. The danger far outweighs any benefit to Canada, and in fact, there are virtually none.

The Ministry of the Environment has been very silent on this, I think. There's a tremendous amount of information on the Kitimat pipeline. There is, first of all, the Federal Energy Administration report which was submitted last August to Nelson Rockefeller as president of the Senate of the United States. It shows that the United States does have other options. But the only reason that they want to proceed with the Kitimat pipeline to serve the northern tier states is because they anticipate that there will be no environmental objections and that there's no environmental legislation in British Columbia comparable to the environmental legislation of Washington state and other alternatives in the United States.

This government has been so silent. Just recently we see that the Premier might be second-guessing this somewhat. But I think the danger of legislation like this is that it is so inconsequential. It isn't necessary, for the reasons that my colleague from Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) outlined - the emergency powers are already there in other legislation. But it will detract from the importance of taking some very strong action at the international level.

It is the United States that made a mistake. They have carried their Prudhoe Bay-to-Valdez pipeline over one range of mountains. They've got it down to the ocean. Now they find out that where they need the oil is in the midwest states, so they've got to take it back over the mountains again. It is absolute folly. I repeat: this minister has not been adequate in addressing himself to what I consider the most pressing environmental concern in British Columbia today.

Under these circumstances, I don't see how anyone can support a bill such as this when it is so inadequate to the threat which we are faced with.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): I appreciate the comments from many of the members opposite in the several days during which we have discussed this bill. It is unfortunate, I think, to the members of the House, that the emphasis by most of the speakers dealt with the oil tankers and the possibility of oil spills. I appreciate that that is uppermost in the minds of many, many people. But indeed, we have many possibilities of spills and of polluting solutions in our province. Recently we were involved in a problem concerning a material known as PCBs, which is an oil of some kind but not from an oil tanker. PCBs are a highly toxic substance and particularly dangerous and must be contained or removed or disposed of in some way.

PCBs usually occur on a land area rather than on water, although in the Prince Rupert area it was a combination of the two. We also have a great number of toxic materials that are transported across British Columbia by rail, by truck and by other methods of transportation. All of these could spill and all of these could create problems.

The necessity for this legislation is simple. The Emergency Programme Act which the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) referred to does allow

[ Page 1414 ]

certain actions to be taken. One of its deficiencies is that it does not permit judgments to be made for cost recovery. This Act does permit cost recovery to be made when it's possible to identify the polluter.

The question was asked specifically: how do you find out who caused the pollution? How can you possibly recover that money? There is no foolproof method, of course. There is always the possibility that oil or some other material will find its way on land or in water. The pollution problem is there and it is a matter of someone cleaning it up. Governments have been responsible for the cleanups in many instances because it is impossible to determine who was the cause of it. I

In the event of an oil spill such as the big oil spills that we're hearing about - and they claim them to be inevitable - it would be pretty obvious who's responsible for them, I would suggest. But it is more important to clean up the problem. It's more important to attack problems such as these PCB spills and others than to argue and sit down and worry about who may be responsible for it. The No. I thing we must do is clean it up, eliminate the danger, and then, if necessary, go to court to determine who's responsible for that. If we lose once in a while, and find out that we don't know precisely who's responsible, then the people of British Columbia or some level of government would probably have to cover those costs in cleaning up such a thing as a PCB spill. We would be very fortunate if we were able to clean it up, regardless of covering those costs.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) spoke very eloquently on the various forms of energy transportation in an international grid system and, of course, there are many, many alternatives - many, many jurisdictions, as well, unfortunately. We were in Washington state a couple of weeks back and spoke to some of the new representatives and some of the new appointed directors, including the director of ecology. At that time, the day after arriving from Olympia, it appeared, by way of news reports, that the Governor of Washington state suggested huge supertankers were tolerable for Puget Sound to Cherry Point.

I see a story, either today or yesterday, where, apparently, the same Governor has somewhat reversed her stand and is now encouraging representatives of Washington state to again appeal the senior court decision that Washington state could not prohibit supertankers from going past a certain point on land. In a very short period of time we've actually had two statements from the same Governor about whether she, as Governor, is in favour of using Cherry Point to unload the supertankers. Her position does not seem to be as clear as it was suggested it was last week.

We have consistently advised Washington state officials that we regard Cherry Point as a most dangerous site for supertankers or, indeed, for large quantities of oil transportation. We have advised Washington state that we believe Port Angeles is more preferable. They have advised us that the people in Port Angeles don't want it. The former Governor of Washington state was in favour of Port Angeles over Cherry Point. Our early advice was that the present Governor was not necessarily in favour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against the Trans Mountain proposal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Trans Mountain proposal has just come before us today.

MR. D'ARCY: It's no longer a proposal; it's a fact.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's a pact. They've hardly received permission from the National Energy Board, since they have just applied. It's hardly a fact. It is a pact rather than a fait accompli. The two companies have got together and said: "We will put up the money if we get permission to go ahead and do it." There is a long way between now and then.

We would not encourage, without proper options, increasing the load into Cherry Point. As the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned, ~Mr. Speaker, there seem to be alternatives throughout North America. There seem to be alternatives that should be investigated by all the jurisdictions involved: the federal government of the United States, the federal government of Canada, the province of British Columbia, the state of Washington, perhaps the province of Alberta, and some of the Maritime provinces and New England states. Those which are before us now are specific proposals. They are the proposal for Kitimat, the proposal for Cherry Point, perhaps Port Angeles and maybe even some others that we haven't heard of yet.

This matter is being reviewed and has been under review for some time by an inter-ministerial committee. The province has indicated that we will be intervening at the NEB hearings into the Kitimat proposal.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Are you for it or against it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have spoken with the federal Minister of the Environment, Mr. LeBlanc. We've advised him that we have great concern over the environmental impacts of the possibility of that port at Kitimat. He has, I believe, publicly stated that he also is very concerned and intends to hold public inquiries into the environmental and transport side of that action at Kitimat.

The provincial government has not made a statement indicating that it favours either the Kitimat

[ Page 1415 ]

proposal or this most recent proposal. I'm afraid that's as far as We can go at this time, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: lack Davis did.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , Mr. Speaker, wondered if we would co-operate with environment-oriented groups. I mentioned the other day in speaking to this bill that, yes, of course, we're quite prepared to speak to any organization with ideas or expertise. We have been in close contact with many persons who have spent a considerable period of time actually attacking the recovery of toxic materials and oil spills.

It's fine to speak of prevention, and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan said the health concept is a very close parallel to environment. Of Course it is. He suggested that the best way to attack health problems is prevention. We agree. But we still have ambulances, we still have hospitals, we still have doctors, because we recognize that nothing is fool proof. Prevention is fine, and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could prevent illness? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could prevent blindness and some other problems? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could prevent all pollution?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If you really believe that we can simply pass a bill in this House saying, "Thou shall not pollute, " it would be very delightful to do that, Madam Member.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Start, then!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member from Revelstoke-Slocan said the Pollution Control Act is inadequate; it should be reviewed. It's been sitting around since 1967 and should be reviewed. I mentioned to the members of this House that the Pollution Control Act has had approximately 50 amendments since it was introduced in 1967. The members opposite can take credit for part of that; they introduced one amendment. They changed the name from Deputy Minister of Health to Minister of Health. Unfortunately, the pollution problems before us, Madam Member, were not evident while your party was in government, and that's unfortunate.

MR. SKELLY: It's a case of enforcement.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Unfortunately some of these great amendments were not introduced during that period of time.

MR. SKELLY: How many prosecutions under Social Credit?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You'll have your opportunity to ask that question during the estimates, Mr. Member.

MR. SKELLY: I hope I get an answer.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate the member for Vancouver South suggesting some practical application of attempting to attack pollution problems, particularly oil spills. There are many methods that have been utilized by persons who have developed concepts over the years, and these people have made themselves known very, very recently. Unfortunately, they were not encouraged to make themselves known a couple of years ago. Disbursement materials are available throughout the country. Many have been approved by Environment Canada who were in contact with these people as well.

The concern of regional districts and municipalities is one we share. The cost to a municipality or a regional district could be completely beyond their capacity in the event of a major problem relative to spills of toxic materials. The province is quite prepared to see that these regional districts or municipalities are not expected to go beyond their own capability, as one section of the Act suggests.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 33

NAYS - 16

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 1416 ]

Bill 5, Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 3.

CHANGE OF NAME

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): The purpose of this bill is to overcome certain inequalities towards women presently existing in legislation, or perhaps implied, by virtue of the Change of Name Act. The long-standing custom of a woman taking her husband's surname is being increasingly challenged and many women now wish to retain their maiden names. Actually, Mr. Speaker, there isn't any statute law in this province which requires a woman to take her husband's surname, but once she has acquired that name through using it she is precluded by the Change of Name Act from reverting to her previous name.

Also, there are many persons and agencies, such as banks and credit unions and lending agencies particularly, 1 suppose, who assume today that a married woman must take her husband's surname. It's been practice - too much so, 1 guess - that those people will not recognize the maiden surname even though there is no legislation which requires it. The absence of legislation making this permissive leads to a lot of difficulties for many women who do not adopt their husband's surname.

1 believe that the amendments will overcome these problems by allowing the bride, at the time of marriage, to specifically record on the marriage registration her intention to retain her maiden name. A previously married woman would be given the option of retaining her former married surname or reverting to her maiden surname. The consent of the groom will not be required, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Is it retroactive? Does it apply to my wife?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. You can apply to me privately if you like, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, this procedure will involve no fees or anything like that. It will just be a regularized procedure under the Act. A notation on a marriage certificate will subsequently be issued and will provide proof that the woman is entitled to continue using her previous name.

It will also allow for authorizing a married woman already using her husband's surname to apply for a legal change of name back to her maiden surname or to her former married surname. Consent of the husband will not be required. It will also, Mr. Speaker, allow a married woman who has retained her previous surname, or who had reverted to it, to apply to adopt her present husband's surname. It will give both spouses equal opportunity, under the terms of the Act. I believe, in moving second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that it is an excellent step forward for women's rights in British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in its preamble, the Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law in the eleventh report dealing with the Change of Name Act read as follows: "The inability of a married woman to apply for a change of name creates an inequality in British Columbia law which should no longer be tolerated." Then the Act goes on to make recommendations as to how the Change of Name Act should be amended.

This Bill 3 deals with two of those amendments, and I certainly welcome this piece of legislation. It's something that the women in this province have asked for for a number of years. It was referred by the former Minister of Health to the Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law, and that commission brought down the recommendation. I want to say thanks to the former minister, to the Royal Commission of Family and Children's Law, and to the present Minister of Health for introducing this piece of legislation at this time. I'm certainly going to support it and I think most of the women of the province will too.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I don't want to follow the suit of the first member for Vancouver-Burrard, who tends to turn these into an issue of confrontation between male and female and deprived privileges. I do feel this is a matter of equal opportunity and I'm very proud that the Social Credit government and this Health minister were the government to bring it in. I certainly didn't suggest that it could have been done two or three years ago, Mr. Speaker.

There are many advantages to this bill of a very necessary nature, some of which were outlined by the Minister of Health. There are others where a woman may choose to - and need to - use her maiden name for professional reasons or where a married couple might be in the same profession, again having the same name. This is a great advantage for her to have the opportunity to maintain her maiden name in order that there isn't confusion in the practice of their professions. It is a bill that will be welcomed by both men and women because it's one more step on the part of this government in providing truly a fair and equitable situation for all people - men, women or children - in this province. I commend the minister again and fully support the bill.

[ Page 1417 ]

MR. GIBSON: 1, too, support this bill. It is, as members who have spoken have said, a step forward. It is an insufficient step, in my view, insofar as a married woman's right to change her name is still circumscribed in a way that the husband's ability is no. One of the clauses of this bill, which we can discuss at greater length at committee, stipulates that the surname shall not be changed to any other than her husband's surname or her maiden surname or the surname that she had immediately prior to her marriage. In other words, discrimination remains. A married woman still has less flexibility to change her surname than a man has. A married man can, by application, change his surname to anything he wishes. A married woman, under this amendment to the law, cannot. So there are, in my view as I understand the law, deficiencies that remain. But this is, nevertheless, a step forward and I support it.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): 1, too, want to commend the government for bringing this bill before the members of the House who, I am sure, are all going to give it their support. But at the same time I would like it to go on the record that commendation should also go to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , who created the climate in this province, I think, for the acceptance of this bill so that we are able to not go through a lengthy debate any more.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How come she couldn't convince her colleagues?

MRS. DAILLY: I don't think even you, perhaps, across there would have been prepared if it hadn't been for the member for Vancouver-Burrard bringing it to the attention of the House. It was presented to the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) and recommended to the Berger law commission. But I just wanted to go on record that she does deserve great commendation for first bringing this to the attention of this House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been rather nice if they could have included section 1, citing this as the Clark-McTeer Act (laughter) or some such recognition of some of the enterprising individuals in this country who, regardless of statutes on the books or not, wanted to demonstrate that the old phrase - "what's in a name?" - is a very foolish question, because there's a great deal in a name. Otherwise we wouldn't have the advertising business that generates millions and millions of dollars in North America if there wasn't something in a name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's Maureen McTeer?

MR. WALLACE: I'll have to take the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) aside and introduce him to Maureen McTeer sometime. She's a highly intelligent young lady and very much in the public eye, Mr. Member, and she has a lot to offer to the community and to Canada as Maureen McTeer. Anyway, I wouldn't want to talk too much about that in case I am ruled out of order. You know that I always try to stay in order in this House, Mr. Speaker.

We are living in an age where freedom of choice is more important than ever since there are so many levels of government and each level seems to get more powerful and we have more and more legislation governing our lives. I think the individuality of a person's name and the right of a person to choose his name is one of the lingering pieces of evidence that the individual still counts in society. This legislation is long overdue, but better late than never. I think I would like to add my support of the lady member -oh, and she always gets mad when I say lady member - the first member for Vancouver-Burrard because of the emphasis that she has placed on this kind of reasonable choice which should be available to women. I very much support the bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I welcome the support for this bill. It is an overdue piece of legislation but time marches on and things get better and better as it does. I would like to thank the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) for urging us to bring this legislation in at an early date. They were able to convince their government. The government had a willing ear for women's rights in British Columbia. I would just like to say to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that I - we can talk about this later in committee -believe that his concerns are covered under the bill, in that the bill is now changed to require either spouse in a marriage to be able to apply for a change of surname. Previously it was only a husband. Now it's either spouse who can apply for a change of surname.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Change of Name Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1418 ]

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. MAIR: This bill basically is a housekeeping bill dealing, first of all, with two definitions to be amended; repealing a requirement of the general manager to file a specific report, under section 7 (3) ; changing the minister to the general manager, and the Lieutenant-Governor to the general manager, taking the operation of this statute in those two instances out of the hands of the cabinet or the minister, as the case may be, and to the general manager, where it would appear to be appropriate; and including "ship's chandler" in the definition of "liquor store."

I might say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that there would not appear to be any need to repeal section 16 (3) , as indicated in the bill, because that section was not proclaimed. In second reading I would ask an amendment accordingly. I move second reading of this bill now.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think this is another example of an anti-intellectual bill attacking physicists. I see that they're going to delete the words "Guy Lussac, " a physicist famous for his work in terms of specific gravity and density of liquids. There's not even one word of mention from this minister in doing so. I would hope that when he sums up and closes second reading, we'll have some sort of an apology and explanation for that.

MR. LEVI: Well, it's nice to be on this side of the House and be able to disagree a little bit with my friend on this side of the House. I thought it was a basic English bill, which makes things much simpler for me, although I think the minister was having a great deal of trouble explaining it all. I was losing him between ship chandlers and the general manager. But we intend to support the bill.

MR. LAUK: It came to our attention in public accounts over the past several years, Mr. Speaker, that the number of liquor stores attached to Safeway stores was unusually high. I'm prepared to believe -and I'm sure the public is prepared to accept - that that's because of some optimum economic reason. But I mention that unusual fact of liquor stores being invariably beside a Safeway store - I shouldn't say invariably, but quite often - because this enhances, of course, the business to the Safeway store. I think that in public accounts this should be examined very carefully - when we ever do get around to setting up committees.

The second point arising from that is that I have some concern about giving so much power to the general manager. That's a whole lot of power, particularly in my riding where we have more liquor outlets and certainly more beer parlours than in any other riding in the province - in fact, 1 would say, than any other 10 ridings in the province. We had, 1 think, at last count some 80 pubs. So 1, as a member for Vancouver Centre, am very concerned about the power given to one individual. It could be very dangerous. So we might, or at least I might, propose some amendments in committee.

MR. WALLACE: 1 just want to say briefly that 1 think it shows some progressive thinking that liquor stores will no longer be closed on election days. The old concept that somehow or other we're still living in the era where you can buy votes by getting someone intoxicated on election day is somewhat archaic. I'm pleased to see this step being taken.

I'd like to refer to the comment by the first member for Vancouver Centre and ask why this decision was taken to give this added authority to the general manager to decide where stores may be opened. Perhaps the only basic statistic that seems to relate accurately to the increasing use of alcohol is the ease with which it's available and the number of stores at which you can acquire it.

I wonder if this bill will lead to any particularly rapid increase in the number of outlets. 1 don't read the bill that way, but 1 think many people write to me who are quite rightly concerned about the tremendous problem of alcoholism in this country. They quite rightly express the concern that we are going ahead and making it much easier all the time for people to obtain access to liquor, either in liquor stores or through sales in restaurants and dining rooms and so on. 1 would just like the minister to either confirm or correct my impression that this bill has nothing to do with that other than giving the authority to the general manager to make the decision as to where there may be a store.

But 1 want a very specific answer: does it also give the manager the authority to open as many stores as he might decide in his wisdom are needed in any particular area? Because, that is causing a great (teal of concern by many people, and I think rightly so. Is the bill simply to determine the location of his store, and that the determination of the number of new stores must be decided not just by the general manager but by others?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to inform the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) that 1 intend to ask the government to entomb Mr. Guy Lussac under the provisions of the Cemeteries Act later in the session. But in answer to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and, probably to a greater extent, the member for

[ Page 1419 ]

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , there is no intent to grant unto the general manager any authority to willy-nilly open stores wherever he wants to. The general manager, in all cases, is responsible to the minister and the policy of the government will be made clear to the general manager through the minister.

I too share the members' concern that there is a proliferation of outlets, not only in terms of liquor stores, but in other licences. 1 want to assure the members of this House that that is always given very careful consideration by my ministry. The general manager at all times is very sensitive, of course, to the wishes of the government as so expressed. So there is certainly no intent on the part of the government or this ministry to allow the general manager to open as many stores as he wants - 1 think those are the terms used by the member for Oak Bay. Far from it -they'll be opened in the normal course of events as the pressures of population demand, and along the same guidelines as hitherto.

Mr. Speaker, 1 now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 18.

PROVINCIAL HOMEOWNER

GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): 1 am pleased to introduce this afternoon this measure of additional property tax relief for several deserving classes of citizens. The expansion of homeowner grant benefits contemplated in the bill before us now represents further fulfilment of this government's commitment to the well-being of those segments of our society which are in some difficulty in terms of home-ownership. Estimates indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the additional cost of this measure will be in excess of about half a million dollars. In my view, and in the government's view, it will be taxpayers' money well spent.

This bill raises the additional $100 homeowner grant now payable to homeowners 65 years of age or over to $150 a year. Most importantly perhaps, in terms of a new direction, it extends the grant to persons receiving handicapped assistance under the GAIN Act, and to persons receiving assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act of Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, the total grant available toward payment of property taxes for this group will be $430 per annum.

This will serve in some considerable measure to reduce the incidence of real property taxes for these groups of people who are on fixed, low or perhaps even moderate incomes. Homeowners not in these categories will continue for this year to be eligible for the present $280 grant.

Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation demonstrates the double value of the homeowner grant. In the first place, the grant supplements and reinforces the local property tax base by millions of dollars annually. Secondly, and more importantly, the homeowner grant is an instrument for pursuing social goals, as witness this extra half a -million dollars of benefit to recipients confined to low or fixed incomes.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

On behalf of Mr. Barber, Mr. Cocke moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY (1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. WALLACE: Anything more to say, Gordon?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, for those who were not here last night, I will take about three minutes.

MR. WALLACE: From the top.

MR. GIBSON: I want to, first of all, take the opportunity of correcting a figure that I used last night when I spoke to the House about the effect of compounding 6.2 per cent over 25 years as compared to 8.1 per cent. In the first case, one achieves a factor of'4.5 and, in the second case, one achieves a factor of 7.01. The higher interest rate, in other words, produces a 56 per cent higher capital cost at the end of 25 years and somewhat less, of course, if one wishes to take an intermediate figure of 10 or 15 years - but still a very appreciable difference. The unreconciled growth forecast rates between B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Energy Commission still therefore remain a matter of importance.

The second figure I would like to correct or expand upon is the percentage of the revenue of B.C. Hydro used in paying for interest charges. I used the figure yesterday of 41 per cent. Today we have the advantage of the nine-month figures of the financial statements of the Crown corporations of the province and I can be a bit more precise to the House. On a

[ Page 1420 ]

gross basis, the amount used to pay interest is 44.5 per cent and, on what some might call a net basis -namely, after the capitalization of construction interest charges - 31.7 per cent. You could use either one of those figures with some justification as long as you specify which one it is, but the total amount of interest paid on the revenues is 44.5 per cent on a gross basis.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have said at great enough length why I propose to oppose this bill. There is no question that we need further electrical generating facilities in this province, but it is a question of principle, it is a question of legislative control, it is a question of control of British Columbia Hydro on behalf of the people of this province who feel that it is an agency which is virtually an empire unto itself. It is an agency which the people do not control. There is no regulatory group to which its price increases must be justified. There is insufficient opportunity for oversight by this House.

I cited to the minister responsible last night the fact that the Ontario Legislative Assembly had seen fit to commission a committee to report into those very kinds of questions. Ontario had a legislative committee into the operations of Ontario Hydro; British Columbia should equally do so in this province.

For all of these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose this bill when it comes up to vote, and I very much hope that the necessary control reforms and constitutional reforms to give the people some voice in the operation of this electrical monster is brought about in the very near future.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I've been ready for this for about two days. The Liberal member there carried on a little longer than I expected last night. I'm almost surprised he's finished already.

However, Mr. Speaker, in light of the bill itself, it's a very straightforward bill and I think it was explained very clearly by both the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr, Wolfe) and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) . I think the Liberal member's presentation last night pretty well exemplifies the whole opposition standard on this. We've just been having a great deal of repetition and filibustering on it. While it is a very major sum, without question - a very major sum of money - it is a fairly straightforward borrowing that isn't out of line with what has been taking place in the past.

I'd just like to review very briefly for some of the members; they seem to have a little problem getting through with what was laid out as the reasons for the bill. I think the Minister of Finance laid out very clearly the different projects that the money was required for; I don't think it's necessary to go over all of them again. It's very clearly laid out, I feel.

The Mica Creek project - some $50 million between that and the transmission lines. The Kootenay Canal project - another $5 million in that regard. Site 1, a project that's already underway on the Peace River downstream from the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, together with the transmission line - $104 million. The Seven Mile, a concrete dam to service the powerhouse - this is along the lines of $100 million to be spent in the upcoming year. Hat Creek project - $18 million expenditure on the primary development in that area.

Are you getting this, Gary? It's pretty hard to understand how you heard it and you still don't seem to know what it's all about.

Interjection.

MR. LLOYD: The other matter of the transmission facilities on the Williston-Skeena line -some $81 million. The transformation of the substations - under $105 million. In the upgrading of distribution circuits all over the province - $84 million.

Again, as I mentioned, I don't think it's particularly out of line. It is a terrific amount of money, unquestionably. But this was all laid out very clearly by the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications - what the money was for and how it compared with previous years' spending along this line. It was $500 million in 1972, a further $500 million in 1974, $750 million in 1975 and $500 million in 1976. He also laid out very clearly why the money was required. He indicated the rate of growth that had been taken place in the province.

The Liberal member mentioned last night, Mr. Speaker, that he felt the rate-of-growth projections were out of line. I'd just like to refer to the Economic Council of Canada 12th Annual Review. This is in line with the population increases expected in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, they say that their regional demographic aspects of the report - their projections based on the past demographic trends - show that those regions that have traditionally relied on immigration rather than the natural growth will be least affected by the factors on population.

"By 1985, only two of the five Canadian regions, namely Ontario and British Columbia, will register a growth in the working-age population of 2 to 3 per cent annually. In the other regions this growth will be almost zero. Therefore, unless there are significant increases in participation rates or major advances in productivity, these regions will experience very weak economic growth.

"In the past, the population growth has not been uniform throughout all regions of the country. From 1926 to 1973, the population of

[ Page 1421 ]

British Columbia more than tripled while that of the Atlantic and prairie provinces less than doubled. These disparities result from the regional differences in natural growth rates and migration, and during this period the populations of Ontario and Quebec were more or less at the same rate, 2.2 and 2 per cent per annum, respectively."

I understand that in that same period British Columbia was over 3 per cent.

"A region's relative attractiveness can be determined approximately by comparing its former foreign immigration with the net immigration."

I think this is very notable, Mr. Speaker.

"From 1946 to 1972, the net immigration was about one-third less than the total immigration to Canada. That is, for every 100 immigrants who entered Canada, 35 left, resulting in a net immigration rate of 65. Ontario's net average immigration rate of 79 was well above the national average while Quebec's was only 29." However, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia the rate was 188, which means that for every 100 immigrants from foreign countries this province also received an additional 88 immigrants from other regions of Canada, and I think this is very significant and backs up what the Minister of Energy was referring to.

The opposition had some very strong criticism to continuing Hydro projects, Mr. Speaker. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has mentioned repeatedly in the House his concern about the Revelstoke Dam and the possibility of a Downie Slide. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , who, I see, isn't in his chair at the present time, has expressed concern many times this year and last about the McGregor diversion project in my own riding. He has also questioned my attitude toward the McGregor Action Group. I would like to explain a little bit about that group and about how that particular report got started, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's very fortunate in our society that these groups do have a full input and I wouldn't want to see it any other way. They've mentioned that I have accused them of being a political action group. Oh, I think any large body of people, when they get together supporting any project, do form a political lobby, if you will, In fact, their own letter to the Premier of the province, dated January 20 of this year, indicates that very thing. I would like to read out part of that letter for the record, Mr. Speaker:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"Over the past year the concern has rapidly mounted over B.C. Hydro's active consideration of dams along the Lower Peace River at Sites C and E and on the McGregor River, a tributary of the mighty Fraser. In northern B.C., four broadly-based citizen groups have formed to articulate these concerns. On Saturday, January 15,1977, the McGregor Action Group organized a day-long conference at the Inn of the North in Prince George to discuss the implications of these proposed dams. The response exceeded our highest expectations. Some 40 persons representing 15 organizations throughout B.C. actively participated.

"I am sure you will agree that the groups listed below represent one of the most broadly based coalitions in B.C. in many a year."

They go on to stress their concern, Mr. Speaker, for the environment and, here again, they are linking both the Site C and the Site E dam with the McGregor diversion project, which I don't think is really quite fair. At the present time the only one under active consideration for immediate development is the McGregor diversion project. Of course, the thing that makes that most important is the flood-control benefits, which this particular group has completely overlooked in their presentation of any material I've seen to date.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Are you for McGregor?

MR. SKELLY: He certainly is.

MR. COCKE: Say it out loud.

MR. LLOYD: They mentioned several times the lower Peace River, but I'm certain that will be considered on its own merits, Mr. Speaker, when the day comes that they require that or don't require it. The opposition has said several times that it looks fairly apparent that the B.C. Hydro has cooked up the scheme of diversion - that they knew all along they were going to put it through the Williston Lake and through the Bennett Dam. Well, I think it would only be logical, when you already have the generating facilities at that site, that certainly you would look at that option. I don't see where the opposition finds anything in particular to object to that.

One of the other things the McGregor Action Group has indicated is that all the members who attended that meeting endorsed all their proposals wholeheartedly. I'd like to point out that I was speaking with the vice-president of Northwood Pulp, Doug Little, and he indicated to me that while they attended the meeting they didn't endorse all the proposals. In fact, he had to leave before the meeting was over. He also said, Mr. Speaker, that he brought it to the group's attention that he felt it was very important they check out all their facts and they look at the benefits as well as the disadvantages of the diversion, or there'd be a good possibility the group would lose their credibility. I think this is what I was

[ Page 1422 ]

trying to do when I was speaking to the reporter on the particular project. I was trying to indicate that I felt, in all fairness, they should wait and properly assess the studies that were being made. Since that time, of course, the "Fraser River Upstream Storage Review" report has been released and, I might add, released very promptly, by the Environment minister. I think this is very creditable. The report was completed and published in December, 1976, and released in mid-February. I feel that's practically a record for a report of this magnitude.

The report itself deals primarily with the McGregor diversion project. It is their top priority, as the report states. Of course, one of the things that makes the project really worthwhile is the fact that there is a possibility for hydro generation in connection with the flood control aspect of it. Of the eight dam sites that were considered under System E, only the one, the McGregor diversion project, proved to be feasible under all the sensitivity tests that they conducted. I repeat: this is only one project out of the entire System E that has been recommended to go ahead at this present time.

There's a newspaper report on that, Mr. Speaker. The Vancouver Sun did a report on February 23,1977, where they state that the salmon catch could be up by 25 per cent. I believe the member for Nanaimo has quoted this figure several times. I'd like to say that it was considering going ahead with all the projects that it could dip that much. On this one particular project, the McGregor diversion project, they feel at the present time that it would result in a 7 per cent dip, not 25 per cent as indicated by the member for Alberni.

It also mentioned many times the danger of parasites getting back into the Fraser River watershed, the Pacific watershed. Again, this is something that hasn't even been proven since the Bennett Dam, the Williston Dam, went in. They haven't found northern pike in the watershed of the Parsnip, or any of the other rivers draining into that system.

MR. SKELLY: No studies were done. Read the report.

MR. LLOYD: Still, they have provided three solutions to guard against this possibility of them getting back and forth, so I think it is very premature to criticize this and to raise a lot of panic and public concern over it. Certainly B.C. Hydro itself is continuing with impact studies. I think this project has been given as full a review as practically any other project in the province, and with the impact study they are correlating at the present time, I think people should reserve their decision until all these are in before they commit themselves one way or the other. Certainly in light of the joint federal-provincial

"Fraser River Upstream Storage Report, ', ' it would indicate a desirability of that project at the present time. This is not only for the power generation, but primarily for safety under flood control.

It mentioned several times in the report - and I think it hasn't been brought up in the House - the false feeling of security that the dikes along the lower Fraser Valley have given to everybody living down there. In 1972 and 1974, if it hadn't been for the existing dam on the Nechako reservoir, they would have had a real crisis stage. Even with those dams, if the weather had stayed as warm as it was for a while, there would have been a runaway flood similar to 1948.

They have also mentioned the panic. The picture on the front of the washout during the 1948 flood near Hatzic.... They say this is instilling panic in the hearts of everyone. Well, I think anyone who was around in 1948 when that flood was on, who realizes the inconvenience it caused at that time to all the transportation corridors.... All the interior of the province was cut off from the lower mainland. This was in the stage of development that was done in 1948. That isn't on our present-day stage of development - all of the new settlements we have in Richmond and throughout the Delta area.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Again, I say this is what the opposition keeps relating to - the false sense of security that dikes can give. It's been very clearly indicated that the length of time the river stays up against the top of the dike can seriously undermine the entire dike. If softens the foundation of it. They can have freshets bubbling up in behind it. If these ever start taking the material of the dike with them, this is exactly what happens. You get a similar situation to that. That's when the dike breaks loose. It isn't going over the top of the dike, it's busting loose from the bottom. Many of these dikes were constructed years and years and years ago. Nobody has ever taken the foundations apart. They've never been completely reconstructed again. This is a real hazard and it's something everyone should be aware of.

It's not just the lower mainland. Prince George and Quesnel both have very serious flood threats. The report also indicates the stopping of construction in the floodplain, Mr. Speaker. One of our latest projects in Prince George, Project 400, the joint provincial-city office building, is located in that floodplain, as is about one-third of our downtown area in Prince George. We're sitting at the mercy of the weather, that's all it is. Anybody can say: "Well, it didn't happen. Manana! Maybe it won't happen next year." But it could happen just like that again. So I think it's something we c an't overlook.

Certainly I'm not in favour of any more major

[ Page 1423 ]

flooding of rivers. We've certainly had lots-of them up in our area. The Mica reservoir touches one side of my riding; we have the Williston Lake on the other side. There's lots of things we should do in those. We should get a proper cleanup programme going. But I think, in light of the flood control and in light of what additional generating capacity we can get, this certainly has to be reviewed very carefully. When these last studies come in that they're making at the present time, I think that will be the time the public and any environmental groups should make their concern heard. I'm sure they will be given ample time.

The criticism of B.C. Hydro for not supplying information is what prompted me to make this remark. These people are public servants; they're working for a Crown corporation. They're not a foreign giant some place. I was at one of their meetings with this McGregor Action Group. They laid out all the reviews they're doing at the present time and they asked them: "Is there any further report you'd like to see? Do you think we're overlooking anything?" "Well, we'd like to have another meeting right away." And they asked: "What is the point of a meeting? We won't have these studies finished for four or five months." "Well, we'd like to have another meeting anyway and just be kept in touch." So they said they would be quite willing to come any time that there was anything useful to discuss. Far from being hard to reach, I think the B.C. Hydro in this particular instance has been very responsive.

I'd like to compare that, Mr. Speaker, if I may, with the other matter I discussed earlier - the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) objecting so strongly to the Revelstoke Dam. For that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer to an article by Lewis Steegstra, who is the editor of The Revelstoke Review..

Interjection.

MR. LLOYD: Well, he says he's the editor.

Interjection.

MR. LLOYD: On the council? He says:

"Revelstoke is quiet again. The hearings into B.C. Hydro's application for a water licence for the proposed Revelstoke Canyon Dam are over. Never before in British Columbia's history has a proposed power project been subjected to so much public scrutiny or attracted so many interveners. Never before have so many groups or individuals gone into so much preparation to present their views and fears to the water comptroller.

"One may question the project, the need for it or even the procedures required under the Water Act that Hydro must follow to obtain a licence. However, no one can dispute the fact that a fair opportunity was afforded to all who wished to be heard. Be it a large business or organization or a lone individual objector, everyone had the opportunity to say what they felt they had to.

"This individual participation became very evident when the MLA for Revelstoke- Slocan and former Labour minister, Bill King, had completed his presentation and under cross-examination was confronted by a private citizen, Ralph Cocciolo of Revelstoke, with the question: 'Where were you, Mr. King, when this dam was planned?' It was a very good question. Where was the Revelstoke MLA Bill King?"

HON. MR. WOLFE: Where was he?

MR. LLOYD: While the NDP was in power, we read in January 31,1974, right across the front of one of the Revelstoke newspapers: "Project Now Official. Revelstoke Be Damned." Where was Bill King when the Revelstoke Review on February 7,1974, printed on its front page a letter written to the Revelstoke city council from the NDP-appointed B.C. Hydro chairman Cass-Beggs, in which the chairman stated: "In the meantime, we are proceeding on the basis that the Revelstoke project will be constructed for service as early as 1980."

HON. MR. WOLFE: Where were you in 1974, Bill?

MR. LLOYD: In the same letter, Cass-Beggs also promised early release of the environmental reports and the socio-economic implications study which was being completed by Howard Paish and Associates, information which would have greatly assisted the residents of the Revelstoke area to assess some of the socio-economic impacts of the project. This was in the spring of 1974. One and a half years into the reign of the NDP government, again we may well ask: where was Bill King at the time? We certainly did not hear him raise any objections to the contrary.

On Thursday, May 30,1974, another headline reads: "Resources Minister Falls Just Short of Announcing the Revelstoke Canyon Dam. Indicates the Project Will be a Reality." Pictures of a smiling Mr. Bill King and the then Premier Dave Barrett alongside the news item. Mr. Williams was also quoted as saying he will make an announcement within a month or two.

I think this points out, Mr. Speaker, the concern and panic they try to raise after they're out of government. Certainly while they were in government they had lots of opportunity to change the planning

[ Page 1424 ]

if they thought this thing was completely damaging. And yet they keep trying to panic people with the idea that the thing isn't environmentally sound.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What date was that? 1974?

MR. LLOYD: I don't have the date of the publication of this, I'm sorry.

Again, they question the information - that information isn't free enough. Yet this Howard Paish report, one of the things that could have helped get the information to the people, wasn't released to them. In fact, in October, 1975, the paper reported that:

"The Revelstoke city council was asked to 6o-operate with yet another group of consultants engaged by the B.C. Hydro. Council refused because the two-year-old study by Howard Paish and Associates still had not been released. One alderman was quoted as saying that four separate official requests had gone out for this report in two years." Where was Mr. King with his "open government"?

It goes on to indicate, Mr. Speaker, the progress of the planning of the dam. The headline states: The Dam Will Be Built - But When?" Again one wonders: where was Mr. Bill King at this time? We never heard a negative word from him with regard to the dam.

Where was Bill King in the preceding three years while he was a member of the cabinet, especially at the time when the government ordered a halt to the free flow of information to Revelstoke by the B.C. Hydro ...

MR. KING: Are you going to read my reply?

MR. LLOYD: . . . while at the same time allowing Hydro to continue full steam ahead on the Revelstoke project.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There seems to be an unusually loud chatter in the House, and the hon. member for Fort George has the floor.

MR. LLOYD: The NDP was defeated that December. I guess Mr. King had a good opportunity for personal input while the NDP was in power but he did not use it.

Even after the defeat, Mr. King has been notorious for his lack of comment on this enormous project. Why did he not raise the issue in the Legislature in the first spring when, as a former member of cabinet and the present MLA, and also the Leader of the Opposition, he could have been a great service to his constituents and to the Social Credit government.

Instead, he chose to wait until the water hearing started, and it is in his brief to the water comptroller that Mr. King complains how the people of Revelstoke have had no access to the technical data until a few weeks ago. I see the member for Revelstoke left again, Mr. Speaker. Why did he not make sure that his NDP government released whatever information was available? They didn't even release the Paish report for almost two years.

Mr. King further complained in his brief about the community's inability to afford independent, technical and professional experts while Hydro has access to the tax dollars of the province. The studies he's referring to were in progress during the entire period of the NDP administration. His complaint may be valid, but where was Bill King when as a member of the cabinet he could have insisted that independent experts be made available to the people of Revelstoke? His NDP government had access to all the taxpayers of British Columbia, as we found out to our regret.

In his brief, Mr. King also complains about the system of procedures used in obtaining a licence for the dam. But where was Mr. King during the three years of NDP administration when he, could have changed the system?

I think that just clearly points out, Mr. Speaker, the same as I was mentioning there, that the opposition seems to revel in going around the province, trying to stir up public fear. The McGregor diversion project wasn't taken off the books during the NDP administration either. The planning proceeded ahead full steam, and yet they bring it up now as if it's something that was brought on by the Social Credit government. I feel this is very unfair. It is unfair to the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: Double standards.

MR. LLOYD: Yes, definitely - double standards.

Interjection.

MR. LLOYD: I would just like to read some of the remarks that the MLA for Revelstoke- Slocan (Mr. King) made during the water hearings at Revelstoke. This was published on October 1,1976, and I believe it was The Vancouver Sun:

"At an evening session on Thursday the Revelstoke-Slocan MLA, Bill King, said he was mainly concerned about the safety of the project because of the Downie Slide which will dip into the newly-created reservoir. 'The implications of a major slide moving quickly into the reservoir created by the proposed dam are stark and frightening and certainly deserve the most detailed consideration. Can you ask DeBeck to postpone the hearing for between six months to a year pending a full and detailed

[ Page 1425 ]

analysis of the engineering data on the Downie Slide and the proposed dam structure?'

"The MLA said Hydro was contemptuous of the public hearing by going ahead with clearing work on the power transmission lines and calling tenders for part of the project before being granted a water licence."

That's rather odd, Mr. Speaker, because that clearing of the power transmission lines was done under the reign of the NDP government, so it's funny they couldn't have exercised a little control on the Hydro at that time.

One of the other things that the MLA for Revelstoke doesn't mention, Mr. Speaker.... We hear them talk about the 100,000 unemployed all the time. They make a big fuss about that. He doesn't mention the amount of employment that will be caused by this dam this summer. But the Allied Hydro Council of B.C., which represents the trade unions, makes mention of it. Their brief said that the Hydro construction camp will house 2,200 workers, with a peak of 450 families moving into the area during the project. They estimate $2.5 million will be added annually to the local economy as a result of the project. For somebody who was so upset about the unemployment it seems kind of astonishing that they wouldn't be speaking in favour of this B.C. Hydro bill and getting it passed and getting more employment created.

One of the other parts that the opposition mentioned - the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) - was that there was no benefit to any area where the dams were created. While I certainly do agree, I think the areas where the dams are created should have special consideration for any of the damages that they suffer. Most of them are clearly spelled out in the report. I think most of them are reasonably well taken care of, other than, possibly, the cleanup of some of the flood areas, such as I mentioned earlier at Williston Lake.

But as far as any benefits to a local area, I would certainly say that Williston Lake and the Bennett Dam have been quite a benefit to my riding and to northern B.C. Mackenzie, Chetwynd and Dawson Creek all receive their power from this source at the present time. In my own area we have five pulp mills that have been established and large sawmill complexes, These have all been made possible because of the adequate source of power in the area. So when you keep speaking of all these people out of work, I wonder where the opposition feels the opportunities for employment are going to come from if we don't create an energy base and if we don't continue with the programme of expanding the hydro resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't have it both ways.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would just say that I totally approve of this bill and I wish we could get on with the business of the House. I think we've spent enough filibustering of this one.

MRS. DAILLY: Before I get into just a very few remarks on my opposition to the bill, I think, apropos to that, there have been a number of comments made by the last speaker about the member for Revelstoke- Slocan. As he has already spoken in, the debate and doesn't have an opportunity to reply, I would like the opportunity to also quote from a letter, Mr. Speaker, the former speaker just spent a considerable amount of time doing. So I would like to quote from the member for Revelstoke-Slo can's reply to the letter which the former member just put in the records of the House. Most of them sitting here were listening. It isn't a question, Mr. Speaker, of being touchy. It's a question of getting the facts out and in Hansard. I am sure that the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would be very concerned about seeing that the accurate facts are always laid before this House. Right? And that's why you will listen, I hope, with great interest as I go through this. Now this is to the....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby North has the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: This was to the editor of the Traily Daily Times dated November 3,1976.

"Dear Sir:

"In the Letters to the Editor section of a recent edition of the Trail Times your correspondent, Louis G. Steegstra, questions my whereabouts. There is, of course, no question that plans for further development of the Columbia River were proceeded with by B.C. Hydro during the New Democratic Party's term of office. I stress the word 'term, ' as 'reign' implies to me a rather unfortunate grasp of British parliamentary democracy which, we do not see, is understood yet by the party now in power.

"There is no suggestion contained in my brief to the water comptroller, or indeed in any public comment I have made, that indicates that B.C. Hydro had been dictated to by the NDP government with respect to further development of the Columbia River.

"The point is, though, that Hydro had not completed planning, and no proposal had ever been submitted to cabinet, much less approved." That point was not made by the member. "Therefore, I was hardly in a position to attack a proposal which has not yet been

[ Page 1426 ]

made. Such conduct on my part might have been likened to Don Quixote tilting at windmills. It is also quite true that over the past number of years, ministers of the NDP government gave indications that further development of the Columbia was imminent. Now this is conceded.

"I had personally given a commitment to the city of Revelstoke that adequate lead time would be afforded to the community to study and react to the development plan when it was completed. Mr. Steegstra, as a local alderman, must have been aware of my commitment. It is all history now, but the CCF party and the New Democratic Party consistently opposed the Columbia River Treaty during the early 1960s." Mr. Speaker, the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is very much aware of that.

"The treaty surrendered, in our view, control of the Columbia River for all time to the Americans."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Burnaby North has the floor. Order, please!

MRS. DAILLY:

"The Columbia River Treaty, which in our view surrendered control of the Columbia River for all time to the Americans, contained a provision for construction of dams at Revelstoke Canyon and at Downie Creek.

"When the NDP administration was elected in 1972, the Duncan and Keenleyside Dams were complete and Mica was nearing completion."

Now to infer that we should have stopped or interfered with plans for a complete harnessing of the river seems rather foolish. The damage had already been done in terms of surrendering sovereignty, inundating vast and valuable acreage. The major social and ecological impact and disruption had already been done through actions taken by the former Social Credit government. I am adding that in. That is not in the transcript of the letter.

"Suffice to say that I would personally have insisted on a safe proposal and a socially fair one to my riding, whether contemplated by my own government or the Social Credit administration.

"During the course of Mr. Steegstra's exhaustive research into press clippings, he might have been well advised to review correspondence between his council and B.C. Hydro also. Perhaps he overlooked a letter from Mr. J.W. Wilson, executive director of B.C. Hydro, dated March 26,1975, and directed to the Revelstoke mayor and council.

"Mr. Wilson notified the city that an initial re-examination of demand forecast had just been started which could have considerable effect on proposed projects and their staging. He further advised that planned public information meetings in Revelstoke would therefore be premature. An election was called some seven months later and Hydro's plan had still not been submitted to cabinet for consideration.

"Mr. Steegstra's charge that the NDP government ordered a halt to the free flow of information from B.C. Hydro to the city of Revelstoke is patently untrue, as witnessed by the previously referred to Wilson letter, which he chooses to forget.

"As for the allegation that I personally remained silent until the water licence hearings, may I refer the gentleman to Hansard, and all the pages are listed here."

I will not subject the House to listing the number of pages in which the member actually was referred to. I can give you examples - 1880,1881,1882,1883, right through to pages 3270, all contained in the spring session of 1976. Yes, Virginia, we do now have a verbatim, unexpurgated record of all legislative debates.

MR. BARRETT: You should resign your seat.

MRS. DAILLY:

"My speeches in the Legislature, made after the Hydro development plan was approved by the Social Credit cabinet, are a matter of public record. With all modesty, I suggest they presented the concerns of my constituency in an intelligent and rational manner.

"I have now enjoyed the honour and privilege of representing Revelstoke-Slocan constituency for three separate terms of office. Certainly my representation is not above criticism and I readily admit to being a fallible and somewhat stubborn human being. Failing to take a political position, however, is one criticism which I do not think is a valid one. Although many people may disagree with my reasoning, they at least know my position.

"Now why did Mr. Steegstra choose this particular time to question the extent and quality of my conduct regarding the Revelstoke Dam proposal? The water comptroller is studying all evidence submitted to the lengthy hearings before reaching a decision. I personally fear that indications of discord and disunity, particularly between local elected

[ Page 1427 ]

representatives, will do little to persuade the comptroller that our community is united in their demands."

"Meetings between myself, the city council and their solicitor, prior to the hearings, acknowledged the need for a cohesive community approach. My submission supported council's brief, as was acknowledged by the city solicitor and the council during prior consultation. Not one reservation was voiced by a member of council regarding my proposed submission during the considerable consultation period prior. Indeed, all acknowledged the complimentary thrust of my brief and the city's. Accordingly, I have difficulty understanding how Mr. Steegstra can attack my submission without compromising his support for the presentation made on the city's behalf by their solicitor, Mr. Galt Wilson.

"In my view, it is an irresponsible gesture to create disunity at this crucial time in the city's history for the apparent sole reason of attempting to score partisan political points. Now while I am also partisan politically, I must confess that I hold the safety and security of this community as more fundamental to my responsibility than any political dogma. Provincial elections offer the appropriate occasion for electors to weigh the philosophical views of candidates and parties. On these occasions, I welcome the opportunity to debate philosophy and issues.

"Perhaps next time around the Social Credit Party leader and his candidates will decide to participate in such forums also. In the meantime, it would be most unfortunate if political posturing jeopardized the best interests and future security of our community by displaying a crack in our armour of local unity on the most crucial issue to ever confront Revelstoke."

MR. LAUK: Shame! Resign your seat!

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to read the reply of the letter which was quoted by that member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) . It's also interesting to note that Mr. Steegstra, whom he referred to so often in the letter of the member for Revel stoke- Slocan, the former minister, is a provincial officer in the Social Credit Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. DAILLY: I think the main point....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for Burnaby North has the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the main point in asking to read that letter was to point out that there were mis-statements made about this former minister and present member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . He is concerned primarily for the safety of his community. That is his concern, and should be the concern of every member in the government, and to use - as the former speaker did who took his place before I took my place - that letter is certainly putting political partisanship ahead of the safety of the people of that area. It was a disgraceful display, Mr. Speaker.

I just briefly want to refer back to my own concerns about the bill.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Somebody said: "Step outside." I'm not really at that stage yet where I can ask the member to step outside. (Laughter.) Women's lib is almost here, but not quite.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to my own basic concerns and just say, very briefly, that I have listened to the concerns of the opposition....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have a little more attention to the speaker who has taken her place in this debate?

MRS. DAILLY: I've listened to the concerns of the opposition until the last speaker stood up, and we've heard from the minister who presented the bill. We have really not had anything given to us to inspire confidence in the opposition to support this bill. In fact, I think our initial fears are even greater because of the lack of information that has been given to this House to support this bill which has such massive borrowing powers in it.

Remember, it's the people of the province whom we are asking to pay for this. It's our children, and our grandchildren again, who are going to have to pay if this bill goes through. Now that does not mean we do not appreciate the fact that energy is one of the greatest problems we face - the energy needs of this province as well as everywhere else in the world - but our major concern is that we are literally being led down a garden path. We have not been given any concrete reason to support this money. As a matter of fact, I think the worst thing is that, basically, there

[ Page 1428 ]

is no public accountability of B.C. Hydro to the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MRS. DAILLY: There has been no committee set up by this House so that the members of the opposition, and government members who are interested, could actually sit down and question the B.C. Hydro officials on an important bill like this. We have to sit here and try to drag this out of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) who, let us face it, is not an expert in this.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I resent that!

MRS. DAILLY: We have to drag out of him why the cabinet has presented this bill to us. You know, the only opportunity we had to even relate to anyone with Hydro was last night. I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to watch the chairman of B.C. Hydro on one of the local Vancouver television stations being interviewed by one of the Vancouver newspaper columnists.

We listened with great interest, but, Mr. Speaker, here he is. The chairman of Hydro is the one who obviously has recommended this with his board of directors to the cabinet. We came away from watching that programme with no further information as to why we should support the need for this bill. This chairman of B.C. Hydro is acting, as all of the other members of his government which put him in there in that position are, like it is strictly a businessman's approach. There is no suggestion on alternative forms of power except.... One of the most frightening things which came out of that programme last night is that the chairman of B.C. Hydro actually admitted that he personally sees the eventual use of nuclear power for energy in this province.

Now if the cabinet is sitting back and accepting the B.C. Hydro chairman's asking them to approve this, obviously somebody must have met with him. If that follows, does that also mean that the B.C. Social Credit cabinet and their Premier are tacitly going down the path of nuclear power for energy? Obviously Bonner, the chairman of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker, is making the decisions for all the energy needs of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it is dangerous because he has not given us any alternatives. The member for North Carolina.... (Laughter.) They do speak slowly!

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) went on for over three hours last night. He did, I think, a magnificent job of detailing the concerns of the people of B.C. Our own members here in the NDP have done the same thing. We are speaking on behalf of the people of British Columbia. We want to know. Why do we need this money? Are we going down the right track? We have no answers.

You know, one thing frightens me also. To read a statement, if I can find it, by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .... I wondered if, as a member of cabinet, this is how they make their decisions on presenting a bill such as this to us. I'd just like to quote from The Province of May 9: "Economic Development minister, Don Phillips, said Friday that the Liard River in northern B.C. tops his priority list for providing hydro power to the province. 'When I fly over the great northland, I see going into the Arctic Ocean energy wasting, beautiful btus flowing into the ocean.' -

Well, I suppose he got excited when he looked at that magnificent water, and then he must have come back to cabinet and said: "Yes, yes, we must support dams." You know, with that kind of research, I really think the public is in.... We are really in a very, very sad state of affairs in this province.

I would really like to know what sort of a cabinet meeting was held, through you, Mr. Speaker, to you, Mr. Minister, who I know are going to close the debate shortly. Would you tell us what kind of research, what kind of committee meetings, what kind of discussions took place? Was the Minister of Economic Development the only member of cabinet who expressed ecstasy over the development of dams? Were there no other alternatives presented?

To the hon. minister who has presented the bill, no one on this side of the House in our party could possibly support a bill which leaves us with such little confidence that this government knows what it's doing and where it's going with energy policies for this province.

MR. LEA: You know, I think, Mr. Speaker, what we have here was best told by the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) . He said: "Groups that go around the province showing some interest in economic projects or individual projects are going to cause panic and concern." I'd suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason we are in so many jackpots in North America is because over the years there haven't been enough groups that have caused panic and concern.

You know, when you have a chairman of a public utility like B.C. Hydro - Mr. Bonner - saying when taking office: "If it comes right down to it, between economic growth and animals, the animals will have to go. . . ." He said it. Then we have another director of B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) .

Interjections.

[ Page 1429 ]

MR. LEA: I met with the federal Minister of the Environment a few years ago when we were in government to discuss another project - it was whether coal was going to come out through Prince Rupert and Ridley Island, or whether it was going to come out in Howe Sound, in the federal member's riding.

The federal member at that time, who was the Minister of the Environment, is now the Minister of Energy for the province, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour.... When I met him in his office in Vancouver, we sat down. The director, Mr. Herston, was there also, and we were talking about an economic project. I asked the minister at that time whether or not the data that had been gathered had been analysed in order for him to say that his preference was Prince Rupert and not Howe Sound.

He said: "Well, no, we haven't done that yet." He said: "But listen, Rod, couldn't we just get a helicopter and fly around over the estuary and sort of tell that way?"

And Mr. Herston said, "No, Mr. Minister, we can't tell that way."

He said, "Oh. Well, maybe we can get that data analysed then."

So we have Mr. Bonner saying that if it comes to animals or economic growth, the animals have to go. A director of B.C. Hydro wants to fly over the estuary of the Skeena in a helicopter to see whether it is okay environmentally to build a bulk-loading plant there for coal. You have to have some doubt as to whether or not those kind of people can lead us in the direction in which we should go as a society, and I think they're found lacking.

Then we take a look at the member for Fort George who says this protest group is being irresponsible. But I don't think that that member is being irresponsible. I don't think he has quite grasped yet, Mr. Speaker, what happens to concerned citizens who form into groups to tell government about a concern. What happens is that they take the offensive, Mr. Speaker, like this group on the McGregor diversion - they're taking the offensive against a project.

But what happens when government decides that they're going to listen to those concerned groups? They usually ask the concerned citizens to prove to the government why it shouldn't go ahead, as opposed to listening to the concerns and saying: "We think you have a point. Let's look into it and get back to you after having all the research and the facilities of government to look into the project and see whether it's feasible." I suggest to you that if we had listened more over the years to concerned citizens, whom that member describes as panic-makers, we wouldn't be in some of the jackpots we are today.

In that same meeting in Vancouver a few years ago, when I met with the federal Minister of the Environment, who is now the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications for this province, Mr. Herston again said to that minister: "No, it wouldn't pay to fly just over the area in a helicopter and take a look-see. If we knew what we know now, we would not have built Roberts Bank."

That seems to me the history of the kind of philosophy that that political party across there, the Social Credit, puts forward. I think they're concerned, but it's always too late because their primary objective is economic growth at any cost, regardless of the social ills or the environmental ills that may follow. I don't believe they do it with malice aforethought; I just think they do it with no thought because it isn't in their make-up.

When I look at that party over there, they seem to always say the same thing. They said it in the 1950s. I think that as a political party they are emotionally retarded in about the early 1950s. That's where they really are; they're in a state of emotional retardation. I'm not saying they can't be engineers or doctor~l I'm saying that they're emotionally retarded in the 1950s. They haven't been anywhere since that time emotionally. They bought the 1950s kind of growth syndrome that we were having at that time, and they can't seem to get past that kind of philosophy and that kind of thinking.

So we have in front of us a bill to borrow millions and millions of dollars, with no thought as to what that kind of spending will do to our future socially or environmentally. It isn't their style and it doesn't enter their heads to think about that. They honestly believe that economic growth at any cost will be-good for the province. I don't think they're going against their conscience, Mr. Speaker; I just think in that particular area they don't have a conscience, because it hasn't been developed. They have emotional retardation from the early I 950s.

Mr. Bonner, I think, proves that more than anyone else. If it comes to economic growth, he said, or the animals, the animals must go. I wonder if in that statement he thought about the fact that we are animals too - a higher order, I'll admit; a higher order, I hope - but animals, nevertheless, that have to survive on whether or not we have an environment that will support animal life on this earth.

Economic growth at any cost is the one thing that has got us into a great deal of trouble over the years. Rather than deal with our environmental problems, as they've had to do in Europe because they realized that they only had a certain amount of land and if they ruined it they were going to be the recipients of that bad planning, in North America we've always had the attitude that there is another valley just over the next mountain that we can ruin later, and we don't have to worry about this one.

That's the kind of 1950 philosophy that those

[ Page 1430 ]

people hold today in the Social Credit Party. They've been joined in the Social Credit Party and in their cabinet by people from other political faiths who were also in a state of emotional retardation in the 1950s. They've got the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , they've got the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the Minister of Energy (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , who is emotionally retarded, probably, in the 1940s.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you kindly relate your remarks to Bill 4?

MR. LEA: They are, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I fail to see it in the last few minutes of your debate.

MR. LEA: We're talking about whether we're going to spend $650 million to generate hydro-electric power in this province, and whether we should have it.

Now if we're going to talk about that, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have to talk about the attitude of the people who are putting forward the bill to ask for that kind of money. You can't always deal with the facts. You have to look at character. You have to look at attitudes. You have to look at emotions, because they are also factors that go into the equation of whether you're going to do something or not going to do something. They are important.

The thing that frightens me the most about this bill is the fact that on this side of the House we don't know for sure which projection figures are the accurate ones. What frightens me even more is that the government doesn't know which figures, in terms of projection of electric energy we're going to use, are the correct ones either. No one knows! The government doesn't know and we don't know. Hydro doesn't know. The B.C. Energy Commission doesn't know. No one knows. Yet we're still willing to come into this House and spend these kinds of millions of dollars to take a direction when we don't know whether it's the right direction or not. And that's the truth isn't it, Mr. Minister? That's the truth.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Do you know? "Who would know?" the Minister of Labour says. I say that if we don't know at this very crucial time in our history, then maybe it's better that we wait a little while, do a little more work, look into some alternate forms of energy, and see whether we can't strike out in a direction that will have some better assurance that we do know. That's all I'm saying. But to just grasp the highest figure that's available to you from an outfit like B.C. Hydro - which, we all admit, tend to perpetuate their growth more than it need be.... That's what they intend to do, so why choose the biggest figure? Why choose the one from B.C. Hydro? Because it's the biggest? Wouldn't it at least be safer to use the B.C. Energy Commission report and their figures? It would be a little safer.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It is pretty close. As the member for North Vancouver-Capilano said: "A little close isn't close enough, when you're dealing with these kinds of figures." When you go down the road a little way, you find that this little bit now, becomes a great big bit then.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I don't believe that we're going to act as good citizens of this province if we go in a direction in which we don't have any idea where we're going to end up. We have no idea. The Minister of Labour has admitted that no one knows. Nor should we be expected to know. But at least, Mr. Speaker, we could put the kind of time and research into trying to find answers before we storm ahead like this.

Under the British parliamentary system, and the democratic system which we live under in this province, we all own a little chunk of British Columbia. But if it were possible for any one person to own British Columbia.... Hypothetically, let's say it was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) who owned the province of British Columbia. I would like to ask whether, on the information available to this House, he would bring in a bill - if he owned this province - to spend $650 million to go in a direction that the Minister of Labour admits we don't know is the correct one. You know, the Minister of Labour has admitted that he doesn't even know whether we're going in the correct direction with this spending bill. He doesn't know! Yet he is willing to vote for it anyway. I don't know what we're coming to, Mr. Speaker, when a minister of the Crown will admit that we don't know if we're going in the right direction, but asks us to support the bill anyway.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I am not putting words in your mouth, Mr. Minister. You said: "Who knows?" I take it from that that you mean: "Who knows?" No one knows. Okay, then maybe after I finish speaking, Mr. Speaker, the minister can get up and tell us who knows.

[ Page 1431 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I've already spoken when you were away from the House.

MR. LEA: Did you tell us who knows?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Read it in Hansard.

MR. LEA: 1 don't think they give a darn who knows, because they've been asked by a person, who, they consider, is in a position of authority, for $650 million and it's their general makeup - as right-wingers have always been - to accept anything from people in positions of authority without question. They've used that down through the ages to not only commit atrocities, but to act irresponsible in every other manner. Something in authority has told them to do something or has asked for something, and their idea of being good little boys is never to question people in authority. Never question it! That's the way they've operated all throughout history and that's how they continue to operate. Somebody up there said that we should do it, so we have no responsibility, we were just following orders. We were just doing what someone in authority suggested we do or ordered us to do. That will continue to be the policy of any right-wing government.

It's not a Liberal government, not a Conservative government, not a Socred government, but a coalition of right-wingers made up from three or four political parties. It's a coalition of right-wingers who have no sense of responsibility except the perpetuation of their own political party, whatever it may be. Let's call it a coalition of opportunity to bring this province down, because that's what they're going to do.

When we see a bill come into this House to ask for $650 million when yesterday we saw the handicapped in this province denied a raise of $22.50 of money that was already given to them from the federal government, we have to question the priorities and the attitudes of people like that who will do that kind of thing. They cannot stand up in this House and talk about fiscal responsibility when they make the handicapped in this province suffer and then bring in a bill for $650 million and say: ---I sit the right direction? Who knows?"

If that's the case, spend part of it and give a little bit of money to the handicapped and the elderly. They're not about to do that because when it comes to animals or economic growth or human beings, economic growth will be the first order of the day with that bunch because they believe that if you have uncontrollable runaway economic growth at all times, it will trickle down somehow to benefit the people at the bottom.

But we all know it doesn't work that way. It has never worked that way because all we have managed to do is to get ourselves into 1977 with all the problems that we face today - runaway inflation, pollution, people going to bed hungry every night in probably the richest society in the world. We know that there are elderly people who are forced to eat dog and eat food to survive in North America. Yet that group over there still doesn't have the good common sense to want to take a look at the future and do a little planning, just a little planning, to decide whether or not we are going to go down the road to the future that will leave no heritage at all for future generations.

They are willing to do that based on the fact that what's good for General Motors is good enough for us, without question. They see corporations as authority figures and when it comes to authority figures, they are trained to bow every time. That's their training and they're going to carry it out regardless of the consequence. We oppose this bill. We oppose it because they don't have any idea what they're doing and they are willing to go ahead anyway.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fort George on a point of order.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are supposed to stand as soon as possible to correct any wrong statements made. I would just like to correct the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . He mentioned that I was criticizing the concerned groups for objecting. I very specifically said that I felt any group in the province or any individual in the province had every right to protest whenever they felt they wanted to. All I specifically said was that 'I felt they shouldn't prejudge a project without considering the benefits as well as the damages. I notice he still didn't refer to the flood control aspects.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your correction, hon. member.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, just a few words - the hour is late.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. ]

I am rather amazed by the objections and the opposition that has been raised to this bill by the NDP in particular because the bulk of the money which is being requested under this piece of legislation is to service the debt on projects which they have initiated. I can't understand their opposition. Are they ashamed of the kind of projects they have initiated under B.C. Hydro? Are they ashamed for what they did in the three and a half years? If they're not, they should be. But you know,

[ Page 1432 ]

most think-

k that it was a novel thing, that there was something new about borrowing money for B.C. Hydro, but we only have to go back to 1974 when they borrowed $500 million for B.C. Hydro.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Who did?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The NDP when they were government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CHABOT: In 1975 they borrowed $750 million. Their opposition to this legislation almost leads one to believe that it's something new, that it's never been tried in British Columbia before, but I remember when they were in support of the legislation when they were on this side of the House. They are a party of two standards, Mr. Speaker. I listened to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) try to defend the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) .

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CHABOT: But I recall very vividly being in the community of Revelstoke while I was in opposition when they were government. I was led to believe by the residents there that the Revelstoke Darp was coming. They had been told by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the then Minister of Labour ...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Did he leak it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: ... that the Revelstoke Dam was coming. They'd been in contact with Cass-Beggs - you know, the guy who is retired now with a $10,000 pension after two or three years as chairman of B.C. Hydro. The residents of Revelstoke were told not only by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan but by the chairman of B.C. Hydro that the Revelstoke Dam was just around the corner. The mayor of that community couldn't wait. He couldn't wait; there was an extreme anxiety on the part of the mayor. He wanted that dam for the kind of benefits that would accrue to the community of Revelstoke. But all of a sudden when there is a change of government, he's concerned about the dam going ahead. He's reversed his position completely -the mayor of Revelstoke - in this report.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): What party does he belong to?

HON. MR. CHABOT: And now they talk about the Columbia River Treaty. You know, if I were the socialists in this province - the people who suggested that the Peace River shouldn't go ahead until 1984 and who suggested that the cost of Columbia River power was expensive - I'd hide my head in shame. We have the example now of costly power in British Columbia, and it certainly isn't the Columbia River Treaty because the Columbia River Treaty, Mr. Speaker, provides some of the cheapest power in Canada.

They talk about the overruns, and that was part of their argument when they had to borrow $750 million in 1975, Mr. Speaker. The overrun on the Columbia River Treaty was slightly in excess of $ 100 million. It didn't need $750 million, Mr. Speaker. You know, they yack about the power being sold, the downstream benefits being sold in the United States for 30 years; about the ability of British Columbia constructing the dams up here, be they power generating dams or water storage dams; and the overrun on the return from the United States was in the vicinity of $133 million. The overrun caused by inflation was 33 per cent over a 10-year construction period, which is approximately a 3 per cent increase in costs per year during that period of construction. So that's not costly. That's cheap overruns. In 17 years from now, Mr. Speaker, those benefits - the sale of the downstream benefits that were sold for a 30-year period - will return to British Columbia with negotiations, and the benefits will be immense, Mr. Speaker.

I think one only has to compare the costs and the overruns on the Pend-d'Oreille and on Site I - you know, the leaky Site 1. That was the project that was started by that formidable research assistant you have in the back room there, the former minister of Lands, Forests, Water Resources, condominiums and floating greenbelts, Mr. Speaker. We're having trouble with his project up at Site I - they tell us it's slightly leaky. If you think the overruns were bad on Site I before the leaks developed, Mr. Speaker, you should see what the overruns are going to be. The cost of power on Pend-d'Oreille and Site I will be three and a half to four times more costly than power from Mica - three and a half to four times more costly. That's why we need this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker - in order to service the costly power projects which were initiated by the NDP and to service the overruns on these two power projects.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, much as I don't like supporting these kind of extravagant projects that were initiated by that former government, I have no alternative. The power projects are underway. Let's get on with the job, provide B.C. Hydro, with the money, and hope that the NDP will hide their heads in shame.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

[ Page 1433 ]

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): 1 can't believe it's finally come to this point in time. This has been a wide-ranging debate which started almost a week ago. Off and on we've kicked it around since then and banged Hydro around, back and forward.

I think what comes to mind is that a year ago now, I introduced a similar bill to advance the borrowing of Hydro by a slightly smaller amount. On that occasion 1 did not provide a great deal of detail, and we debated the bill for some two hours. On this occasion I went to extreme lengths to provide the House with complete detail and background of the information in support of expenditures, and here we are still debating it today. 1 don't discount the House's ability or necessity to debate these things but it is an interesting comparison. Once again, to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to advance the borrowing authority of Hydro, in case we've forgotten, by some $650 million. Hydro has been accused of being all the way from insensitive to a monolithic giant, an unaccountable, uncontrollable bureaucracy ...

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: An electrical monster!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Uncontrollable - you name it. 1 think that the member who just shouted from his seat, from North Vancouver, gave an interesting display last night of the relevance of the arguments being presented in opposition to this bill. He cited figures and facts which 1 listened to with great interest.

And particularly when he recited from the Vancouver phone book, I thought that this was right on, Mr. Speaker. 1 almost thought this might not be relevant. Then it suddenly occurred to me that it was relevant because every name in that book is a possible user of hydro power. So therefore 1 would say that those comments were relevant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just a few further observations. The most common complaint in this debate has been to allege that Hydro is an uncontrollable bureaucracy. It is large, but 1 think we should realize the fact that although the staff levels of Hydro, for example, increased to a substantial degree in recent years - and during the term of the former government's administration, you will find that the number of employees in this corporation, as determined from their annual report, increased some 55 per cent in those three years - 1 would have to say that since the inception of the new administration, the new chairman of Hydro, very strict controls have been placed over the growth in size of this corporation in terms of the number of employees. I am advised that in fact the number of employees, as compared to a year ago, is somewhat reduced, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is an interesting point. I'd like to also point out that one of the most difficult things to control in any sizeable operation is, of course, payroll. An action this government has taken very recently has been to try to relate labour contracts, the costs of payroll, to government so that one does not lead the other. I'd like to refer to an initiative taken by the Treasury Board of this government, in which we have now contacted all Crown corporations with a recent letter. I'd just like to read from that, Mr. Speaker. It's to the executive officers and directors of Crown corporations, boards, commissions, and agencies:

"In the matter of the terms and conditions of employment, this government's stated policy is that the public sector should be in line with but not in advance of the private sector. In the implementation of this policy, it is essential that the provincial public sector develop and maintain consistent criteria for dealing with demands for increases of wages and improved conditions of employment. To this end, Treasury Board has been given the responsibility for developing the criteria and for ensuring that all Crown corporations, boards, commissions and agencies conform with this basic policy. With this in mind, Treasury Board has designated the Government Employee Relations Bureau as the co-ordinating agency for this purpose, and 1 would request that you or an appropriate official meet with the bureau immediately to discuss the development of a policy of co-ordination."

1 only cite this as an instance, Mr. Speaker, of our attempts to try to relate what is called the uncontrollable growth in Crown corporations to the fact that we do not relate to them.

Also, Mr. Speaker, a lot of discussion went into the matter of rate increases and the fact that there is no control over the Hydro's ability to raise rates willy-nilly. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, this government, through the Premier and the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) , has intimated very definitely recently that there will be initiatives prepared in the way of rate review, and policies will be put forward in this direction.

1 would like to cite from the most recent prospectus put forward in New York by Hydro, which relates to this matter on page 22:

"The provincial government has announced it is contemplating legislation which will create an authority to review all rate applications made by Crown corporations and agencies, including the Authority. The provincial government has advised the Authority that if such legislation is enacted, the provincial government expects that the Authority will be

[ Page 1434 ]

permitted to charge rates that will enable it to recover its operating costs, including debt service, and make allowances for additional revenue to meet other financial criteria."

Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 think it's a matter that all members of this House should give a lot of thought to, since many have advocated the existence of such a rate review - the possible impact of this and what it might do insofar as Hydro is concerned. 1 don't want to say by that that any rating agency or rating board that you find across this world has a criterion or a given set of guidelines to go by which foresee that a certain return on profit, with certain agreed expenses and depreciation and so on, is acceptable. When you look at Hydro's performance in terms of profit, 1 think you'd have to see that any rate review that you set up to consider their present rates would fall within any particular performance guidelines of a rate review.

For instance, their net profit for the year ended March 31,1976, was $1.3 million on sales of $524 million. Their net profit for the immediately preceeding two or three years was $4.4 million and $15.2 million on sales of $425 million and $376 million.

These are very modest degrees of profit returns, Mr. Speaker. 1 only point out to the members of this House that it's important to realize that any such rate review or agency set up would have to have guidelines based on an acceptable degree of return on their investment and on their revenues. This is the acceptable practice in any agency of this kind.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I will agree with the fact, Mr. Speaker, that within their determinations a rate board, of course, would study what is involved in these expenses and might want to criticize the number of employees or the number of automobiles. But these, in effect, in the total picture would not have a material effect on what we're looking at here in the performance of this corporation and its efficiency.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to the allegations that Hydro is unaccountable. They can never find anything out. Well, any member of this House is free to study the prospectus, which has complete details - I provided it in the debate previously - on all of the anticipated programmes of Hydro. I would only add to that this fact: Hydro can be brought before the public accounts committee and asked any questions. It has been in the last two or three years before this House. Hydro now has a quarterly report.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Why didn't this government produce a quarterly public report on Hydro? Never before! They have an annual public report with complete details and listings of all the bonds - every conceivable question, Mr. Speaker. You call that unaccountable? That's complete accountability. Now we're soon to have an auditor-general who has the power to investigate Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Then again we heard quite a lot about the Revelstoke project and the fact that the hearings to do with the Water Act were a farce. 1 would only point out, Mr. Speaker, that the same Water Act, the same law, existed during the previous tenure and was not changed by the former administration. If they want to criticize the nature of this Act, the powers that it has, the same Act existed during their tenure as sits in place at this stage in affairs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, other members opposite express sincere concern about the nature and size of the debt of Hydro and where it was all leading us to. I'd like to produce for the benefit of members where we really stack up against other provinces in terms of the size of our direct and indirect debt. I have here a schedule....

MR. LEA: It's got nothing to do with it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's very pertinent, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: Why?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, rather than spout off a lot of expletives, I'd like to produce a few facts, Mr. Member. Mr. Speaker, I have here the latest per capita total debt of each province in Canada.

MR. LEA: So what?

HON. MR. WOLFE: You'll find from examining this table - and 1 propose to table it for the benefit of the House - that the per capita debt of British Columbia is some $1,556. There are only two other provinces which have a lower per capita debt than British Columbia in all of Canada, Mr. Speaker. Naturally we're concerned at the size of Hydro.

MR. LEA: Oh, a little initiative here, eh?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, we are all concerned, and we must be concerned over the ability to repay this debt, naturally. This has to be looked at in terms of the cash flow, but it's not true that this province borrows to any great degree more than any province.

[ Page 1435 ]

So, Mr. Speaker, with leave I'd like to table this schedule.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): We'd have been first if it wasn't for you.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Speaker, a lot of percentages have been thrown around about the cost of debt. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) referred to the fact that the cost of debt was 43 or 44 per cent. Then he explained that it was 31 or 32 per cent when you deduct the amount of interest charged to capital construction, which is an appropriate accounting procedure.

What I'd like to explain, Mr. Speaker, is that the relationship of debt to revenues within Hydro is 1 remaining static over the past five years. When you start in 1972 and run it through 1976, you find that the debt cost related to total revenues of Hydro is 32 per cent, 32 per cent, 30 per cent, 29 per cent and 31 per cent.

MR. GIBSON: So you're just like the last government.

HON. MR. WOLFE: So, Mr. Speaker, 1 only want to point out that the debt cost being attributed to their operations is commensurate with the growth in revenue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are also critical of the increased rates in Hydro. A great reason for this has been the growth in their costs - some 50 per cent growth in the operating costs in the past four years, during which electricity revenues on a per kilowatt-hour basis only grew by 23 per cent. So it's natural to follow that, during a period when their costs escalated to that extent in excess of the revenue growth per kilowatt-hour, rate increases had to take place.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned earlier, almost all of the projects now on stream and committed were initiated by previous governments. As has been mentioned already, the NDP raised that debt, in two of the three years in which they were in government, some $500 million and then some $750 million. What is more important, 1 think, to this whole debate is the fact that, after all, Hydro capital expenditures, as large as they are, do mean jobs and create employment. 1 think we should be proud of this and the effort that this makes towards the expansion in the economy of British Columbia. So these are ongoing projects, already committed and already laid on, and this is only a matter of providing for the increased borrowing authority so that the obligations can be met, Mr. Speaker.

You know, last spring - in June, 1 believe it was -Hydro, with the provincial government, went to borrow a major borrowing in the U.S. market of some $500 million, Mr. Speaker. At that stage no one was able to determine what size of loan could be obtained, and there was a need to borrow a very large amount because of commitments then before us. I think it is very clear that the list of policies laid on by this government is the only reason that we were able to obtain a sizeable borrowing of this nature to put us in a position to borrow ahead in a market which was very necessary. It's because of the stature of this government, and the fact that it presented its case properly before the underwriters in New York, that we were able to obtain this most sizeable borrowing ever obtained in the history of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this bill only increases the authority required to borrow. It doesn't say these borrowings will take place. Naturally, borrowings will only be made if necessary. With that comment, I'd like to move the bill be now read a second time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised a point. It was a ruling of the hon. Speaker Dowding that the routine business and motions of the day could be completed. I think you'll find it in the Journals if you look.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): That's the only authority. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: It was ample then; I'm sure it's ample now.

' Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

NAYS - 19

[ Page 1436 ]

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 4, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LAUK: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, page 132, "Breaches of Privilege and Contempts." I'm reading from the first paragraph:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either house of parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt."

I refer, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 68 (l) , and I'll read it to you:

"At the commencement of each session a special committee consisting of five members shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following select standing committees of the House: standing orders and private bills; public accounts and economic affairs; agriculture; municipal affairs and housing; labour and justice; health, education, and human resources; transportation and communications; environment and resources."

All convenient speed has not been fulfilled and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it may constitute a contempt of this House that that standing order has been ignored by government. They have not called that special committee meeting to respond and appoint members to those committees and get them working. We have Crown corporation officials who should be appearing right today, and should have been appearing four weeks ago, five weeks ago, before the public accounts committee.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of privilege raised by the member for Vancouver Centre, I would like to report to the House that we have had a meeting of the members of that committee. The report to the House from the committee, which has consisted of the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , with myself as chairman, will be before.... That meeting has been called and we'll report to the House either this evening or tomorrow. The report is now ready, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to indulge the House in a point of privilege just for a moment. Sitting in the galleries for the last two hours. . . .

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I've already recognized the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, and she says she's on a point of privilege. I must listen to what she has to say.

MRS. WALLACE: I'll yield.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the same subject matter raised by my colleague from Vancouver Centre, and which the Provincial Secretary responded to, I think it's not accurate for the Provincial Secretary to indicate to the House that the committee met. I met as a representative of my party, as did the Liberal leader and the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) , with government members to submit the names of members of our caucus who would act on committees. There was no formal committee structured to deal with public accounts and private bills. The fact that there was a meeting simply to submit names in no way satisfies the requirement of the rule that my friend from Vancouver Centre has referred to.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan is trying to do to confuse the House. He well knows that we held a meeting of which two decisions were made. The first decision was to be the make-up of the committees of which both the Liberal leader and the Conservative leader and the members of the NDP were to submit names to that number of people. Those have now been done and the report is simply to be put into the House, and it is ready to be placed into the House. Each representative of each political party in this House has submitted the names according to the numbers that were decided at the committee meeting, and that report is now ready. If you wish to meet again, I can meet as many times as you want....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before there is any further discussion or debate, it's really not a matter of debate before the House at this time. It is a matter that a committee was struck and it is up to the committee themselves to hold their meetings outside of the House and table the report with the House,

[ Page 1437 ]

which I would urge that they do as quickly as possible.

MR. KING: On a point of order to correct a statement that I made earlier, the Conservative leader was not at the meeting I referred to - that was not a formal committee, Mr. Speaker. That committee met over three weeks ago and no action has been given to give effect to the names that were submitted.

Hon. Mr. Williams presented the 58th annual report of the Department of Labour.

MRS. WALLACE: I just wish to beg the indulgence if the House to introduce four young gentlemen who have been sitting for some two hours in the gallery. They are members of the parliamentary forum at Lake Cowichan Senior Secondary School. They are made up of their Prime Minister, Stanley Jung; one of their Liberal government members, Todd Martin ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberal?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, they have a Liberal government in Lake Cowichan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. WALLACE: ... the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, Pat Kretshner, is there; also their Deputy Clerk, Tony Hajdu. They're here with their Speaker and their teacher, Mr. Thompson. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. KING: I would ask whether, Mr. Speaker, you are ready to give a ruling on the matter of urgent public importance that was raised earlier today. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, since it was raised as being in the considered opinion of the opposition members a matter of urgent public importance, time is of the essence and a report should be rendered as quickly as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The report will be before the House this evening, hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6: 11 p.m.