[ Page 3487 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Natural gas exports. Mr. D'Arcy –– 3487

Advertising of denial care program. Mr. Macdonald –– 3487

Contract between Honeywell and Systems Corporation. Mr. Levi –– 3488

Disposal of PCP.  –– 3488

Mr. Hanson, Mrs. Wallace

Fire standards in rest homes. Mr. Cocke –– 3488

Future of the ferry Princess Marguerite. Mr. Barber –– 3488

Moneys held by travel agents. Mr. Barber –– 3489

Report on Cowichan estuary. Mrs. Wallace –– 3489

Administration of medicine in schools. Mr. Lauk –– 3489

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 146: minister's office –– 3489

Mr. Hall, Ms. Brown, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Cocke, Ms. Sanford

Votes 146 to 149 inclusive approved –– 3501

On vote 150: labour relations, collective bargaining and labour standards –– 3501

Ms. Sanford

Votes 150 to 152 inclusive approved –– 3502

On vote 153: building occupancy charges –– 3502

Ms. Sanford

Votes 153 and 154 approved –– 3502

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 75: minister's office –– 3502

Mr. Skelly

Tabling Documents.

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, fifth report,

Mr. Strachan –– 3510

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), it's my pleasure today to introduce one of his constituents from the municipality of Oak Bay, a man who's no stranger to this House. Dr. Scott Wallace is visiting us, with his brother and his wife. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have 25 students in our gallery today. They are in a summer session — so the legislators are not the only ones in session this summer. They are students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, taking an advanced course for credits in Socials 11, and are here with their teacher, Bob Hepting. Will the House please welcome them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: As some of you know, it has been a keen interest of the government to extend the interest of tourism and welcome into the tourism interest itself people of a variety of interests. One of the areas we've had great success in is some of the historical aspects of our province, particularly in the area of airplanes and automobiles. It gives me great pleasure today to let you know that we have a special group of approximately 40 people throughout the galleries who are members of Packard International Car Club, This is a vintage car club and they're on a tour with their tour master, Bill Lauer, from Victoria. They have been in Mexico and came up through the United States and are now in Canada. Some, I believe, are planning to go across Canada. On behalf of all of you — and you, Mr. Speaker — may I welcome them to British Columbia and say how much many British Columbians are looking forward to meeting them and seeing their beautiful automobiles. I ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I just received a note that my old friend Mario Aiello is in the gallery. I haven't had an opportunity to see him yet, and I'm not sure where he's located. He has with him as well other members of the family: Lily, Anthony and Emma. I'd like to have the House join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the members' gallery today the Hon. Vasey Houghton from Melbourne, Australia. He is the Minister of Conservation for the state of Victoria. He had a very successful journey today to the Sooke waters with fishing guide Jim Hume. I'd like the House to welcome him to British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very pleased to welcome to the gallery today an alderman from North Cowichan, Mr. Alan Hussey. He's accompanied by his wife Mary Hussey, who just happened to be my official agent during the last two elections. Also with them is Mrs. Hussey's godson from England, Mr. Clive Puddy from Rochester, Kent.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are friends from Washington and Oregon, the Savage family and the Lybeck family. It's nice to know at this time the great feeling of friendship between the American and Canadian people. These people are symbolic of that feeling. I'm delighted to ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SEGARTY: I would like the House to join me in welcoming, from the coal capital of Canada, Alderman Gordon McDonald and Alderwoman Molly Doratty from Sparwood.

Oral Questions

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. D'ARCY: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I would like to ask the minister how much the export sales of natural gas — to the
United States have declined in the quarter of this calendar year ending June 30, or if they have declined.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I am not sure which of the questions he wishes to ask me, but whichever one it is, I will take it as notice and report back to the House.

MR. D'ARCY: Is the minister telling the House that he has no idea how much gas we are selling to the United States now, relative to last year?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The question was taken as notice, hon. member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

ADVERTISING OF DENTAL CARE PROGRAM

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the advertisements promoting the dental care plan of British Columbia that have appeared in newspapers are manifestly not in accordance with the fair advertising provisions of the Trade Practices Act in that they state that children under 14 and seniors will receive up to $700 under the plan and fail to state a material fact, contrary to section 3 of that act — namely that they only get the $700 if they pay $700 out of their own pockets; in fact, in stating who is eligible and then stating they get up to $700, it is plainly misleading and false advertising — I ask the minister if he is prepared to investigate these advertisements and to ensure for the people of the province that a fair representation of public plans will be made to them in the newspapers through tax-payers' advertisements.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member's question was largely based on his legal opinion as to those advertisements. I will seek more reliable counsel and consider his question on that basis.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General assure the House that he will investigate as to whether or not these advertisements are in breach of the Trade Practices Act and in particular section 3? These are the kind of advertisement which, if it were a private business, would unquestionably lead to prosecution.

[ Page 3488 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the member is putting the question in the form of a complaint, we most certainly would deal with it on that basis.

CONTRACT BETWEEN HONEYWELL
AND SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for the B.C. Systems Corporation. I asked the minister a question on April 29 about the IBM, but I guess he hasn't found out about it yet, so I have another question for him. Two years ago the minister's predecessor told the House that the government had renegotiated the Honeywell computer contract for $6,488,000, ending on December 31, 1982. At that time the Honeywell was split and sent to Vancouver at great expense. Now I am informed that the Honeywell part that was in Vancouver is back in Victoria. Could the minister tell us exactly what the status is of the Honeywell computer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the member opposite, I'm sorry if I did in fact take a question as notice on April 29 and not respond. That was an oversight on my part. I would have to search back in the Blues.

It will be difficult to answer within the limits of question period, and the member knows that my estimates have yet to be presented to this assembly. The decision with respect to Honeywell is to phase out that equipment. The decision was taken after most careful, thoughtful and quite long-lasting consideration by the board of directors of the B.C. Systems Corporation, on the recommendation of the senior management of that corporation — but again, not without the most careful consideration by the directors, who, through me, are responsible to the people of British Columbia.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, the contract is $6.4 million, still has 18 months to run, and there's probably another $2 million to $2.5 million that has to be paid. What's going to happen in respect to that payment? Is that going to be a loss in terms of that contract that you have with Honeywell?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think we have now reached the point where I would want to take the question as notice and either deal with it subsequently or in estimates, because it is simply not possible without taking the balance of question period to get into all the detail. With respect to the Honeywell phase-out, yes, there will be some loss, but measured against that will be savings in the longer term for the Systems Corporation.

DISPOSAL OF PCP

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment. One of the most commonly used wood preservatives in British Columbia is a chemical called pentachlorophenol. Here at B.C. Forest Products at Gorge Road, they're disposing of the PCP by mixing it in hog fuel and burning it. Is this policy consistent with the guidelines of your ministry for the disposal of hazardous materials?

HON. MR. ROGERS: That is a technical question, Mr. Speaker. I'll take it as notice.

MR. HANSON: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Plumper Bay Sawmills apparently is dumping PCP in hog fuel and taking it to the Hartland Road dump. Would the minister see if this is consistent with the policies of his ministry?

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

MR. HANSON: I have one further supplementary to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Apparently at B.C. Forest Products they bring in casual help on weekends to clean the dip-tanks that have this PCP, and apparently these people are not advised of the hazardous nature of the chemical they're treating. Would the minister please look into this matter as well?

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplementary to the Minister of Environment, would the minister tell the House whether or not he personally gave approval to the cleanout of the PCP-contaminated wood waste in the rail car at Deerholme, and would he tell the House where that material was taken and how it was disposed of?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I did not personally give the approval, if such approval was given. I have no idea, although I can find out, where the substance has gone to. I don't personally give approval for every project done by the ministry.

FIRE STANDARDS IN REST HOMES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. On June 51 asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) what steps he had taken to upgrade the fire standards of long-term care facilities in the province. He took the question as notice and hasn't answered it yet. Now the provincial fire commissioner has received a report from the Hospital Employees Union stating that "in some long-term care facilities workers live in dread of a big fire and feel that there is no way we could get everybody out in time."

Has the Attorney-General seen the report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the same report makes five major recommendations on how a serious tragedy such as the one that occurred recently in Mississauga can be avoided in B.C. Having seen the situation in Mississauga, has the Attorney-General decided to order implementation of any recommendations?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The fire commissioner has indicated that the incident at Mississauga was not occasioned by any failure to meet the appropriate requirements of the fire regulations in that province and wouldn't have offended the requirements here as well. It was an incident which arose due to the careless smoking habits of one of the inmates.

FUTURE OF THE FERRY
PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the minister re-

[ Page 3489 ]

sponsible for B.C. Steamships. There was an interesting letter in the Victoria Times last night published by the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He makes an interesting case in favour of retaining the Princess Marguerite. Has the minister decided to take his predecessor's advice, published last night in the Times, and direct the B.C. Steamship Corporation to refit the Princess Marguerite and put her back where she belongs, in service on the Seattle-Victoria run?

HON. MR. FRASER: The answer is no, I haven't seen the article. No decisions have been made.

MONEYS HELD BY TRAVEL AGENTS

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On May 28 I asked a question of the minister which he took on notice. The question was and remains: has he received any information or advice from the Registrar of Travel Agents in regard to the default by any registered travel agency in British Columbia of their obligations under the act to maintain a certain level of financial participation in the trust funds established by the same act? Has he received any information that any registered travel agency is in default of those obligations?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A question taken on notice, hon. member, is out of order in question period. A new question?

MR. BARBER: Well, I'll pretend it's a new question if you wish, but I asked it on May 28. Has the minister got an answer to that question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if the question is taken on notice, it is out of order to be asked again.

MR. BARBER: All right. I have a new question. This is absurd. Has the minister received any advice from the Registrar of Travel Agents in regard to the default, if any, by registered travel agencies in British Columbia of their obligations under the act to maintain a certain level of financial interest in the trust fund established by the act?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, since that would include any company which may be in default up to this very date, I'll have to take the question as notice and have it researched.

REPORT ON COWICHAN ESTUARY

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Can the Minister of Environment tell this House when we can expect to see the report from the task force that's been reviewing the Cowichan estuary for the past six or seven years?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm sure it's only five years, Mr. Speaker. Shortly.

ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICINE IN SCHOOLS

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Education. On both June 5 and June 6 I asked a question with respect to school medication, which the minister took on notice. Recently further inquiries have been made of me with respect to ministry policy and the administration of medication in schools, which has become a particularly urgent situation since the government has started its mainstreaming of handicapped children into the school system. Has the minister now prepared, and has he decided to give that today, a policy of government with respect to that situation?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer to the member in a general form when he asked those questions. But I will have more to say on the matter in specific terms. I hardly think it's an urgent matter today since most of the schools in this province are closed until September 1. I will have a further specific policy statement in due course.

MR. LAUK: The reason for the urgency — which was quite properly questioned by the minister in question period — is because of specific requests made to me by trustees who are planning policy guidelines now for the new school year. I expect that the same requests have been made to the minister. Is that not true?

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)

On vote 146: minister's office, $155,758.

MR. HALL: I'd like to spend a little time on this estimate, which I consider to be one of the most important estimates to go through the House. It's not that they are not all important, but this one in particular, I think, should attract the attention of most members as it seeks to deal with the health and well-being of people who work for a living and are engaged in the workplace, the marketplace or anywhere else, especially those in the organized section, where throughout the years they have dealt particularly in the aspect of endeavour which we call collective bargaining.

I was interested to hear one member make the point that in recent times we have seen more days lost in this province, not through matters which are under the control of this minister, such as strikes, lockouts and stoppages, but due to illness and things like that. We attend to other estimates by spending the kind of money required for preventive care, and it's been suggested that if we could have spent money in this estimate by setting up structures to deal with the negotiating process, we might have saved ourselves a lot of worry in working on that side of the equation.

I think the minister knows of our concern on this side of the House, of the increasing amount of material coming across the desks of members about the Workers' Compensation Board and the problems associated with what appears to be a deteriorating situation. I'd like to discuss with the minister something about the Workers' Compensation Board.

When I was a first a member, one of the very first cases I had in this field was to do with an injured worker whose injury did not appear on any of the schedules. I made some representations on his behalf. After some time, I was delighted to be able to notify the injured workman not only that his

[ Page 3490 ]

claim had been successful, but that a very large sum of money in back time-loss payments was obtained. I felt that I had really made a tremendous impact on the whole scene of dealing with workers' compensation. The very first case was a clear winner, a very satisfied constituent. Only I found to my horror that it had nothing to do with me, very little to do with the workman and very little to do with any of the people I spoke to. It was, indeed, a change in the schedule which had been coming for about four years, starting off in the province of Ontario. It was the simple addition of one disease to the schedule, namely Caisson disease, the disease that people who work under atmospheric pressure suffer from.

Here we've got another schedule change, which was discussed at some length yesterday, and that's what I want to deal with with the minister. The minister told us yesterday, in the case of the firefighters of the province, that he felt that the subsequent changes to the original draft schedule were enough to satisfy those concerns that were put forward by the firefighters of the province. I'd like to suggest to the minister that they don't, that the schedule 1s not good enough, that there are still serious concerns about what has happened to the firefighters of the province. May I quote from my letters here — that the proposed change, the original change in the schedule would cause great hardship to provincial firefighters.

"The change will attempt to completely change schedule B by deleting injury to the lung as being job-related, and injury to the heart as myocardial infarction within 48 hours of the onset of the infarction. It is also the board's intention to place the onus of proof that the injury is job-related onto the worker. It should be pointed out that a firefighter is required to work under extremely adverse conditions, caused by an uncontrollable variety of emergency situations. These situations continually expose firefighters to great psychological stress, as well as a variety of noxious gases and fumes. Whilst the effects of one exposure, if severe enough, will likely cause immediate medical problems, a grave concern of firefighters is the cumulative effect these exposures have on the body. "

There was a change in that original draft, and there's no doubt that the changes have removed from the complaint that I've just given to you those concerns about myocardial infarction. Schedule B, as circulated to us on June 18, indicates on page 3, I think, a clear definition that meets the complaint. What it doesn't meet is the first part of the complaint, and that is associated lung injury. I think we've just got to keep on working at that, and this is the place to work at it. I think we have to ask again for the kinds of activity by the ministerial staff and minister that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was talking about. It's not good enough to meet only half the problem; you've got to meet it all. If their brief met your standards in dealing with the myocardial infarction, then, in my view, the other point was well made and should have been recognized.

I think that the changes don't recognize the critically important fact of the continuous exposure over a firefighter's life, which we recognize in a number of statutes, including the one by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) on pensions. We recognize it through the Provincial Secretary in terms of retirement out of the public service. We recognize it in the frequent reports from the fire commissioner. Continuous exposure to noxious gases and fumes contributes immensely to the lung problems of firefighters. I think that should be one of the main areas upon which the minister should be active whenever we see these schedules.

It's in the changes of these schedules that, I think, there lies embedded some of the attitudinal, mind-set criticisms that the second member for Victoria discussed yesterday afternoon. It's in that area, together with the original interpretation of settling in favour of the worker when doubt exists, that I believe most of the trouble arises.

It's my view, as an MLA of some years' standing now, in terms of dealing with cases over my desk, that there has been an increased frequency of complaints in these last two years, that I've reported to people I meet in industry. This is one which has not been answered. I think the minister knows that; I think all members of the House know that. There has been an increase in the number of complaints, and I think that doesn't bode well for the future of relationships within the constituency that the minister has to deal with — that is, the labour relations of the province. Nothing is more calculated to disturb the equanimity of labour relations than for people to go to the bargaining table with a chip on their shoulder about what's happening in the workplace. If you can get rid of some of these things, and I think you should be able to, then it'll be a smoother and easier passage.

The next point, if I may, deals with the minimum wage. The minister's own statement on May 22 was not as fulsome as I thought it might have been. I suppose the minister had something to tell us and wasn't too sure how to tell us the good news because it was so late and perhaps too little. He attempted to do that by telling us on the second page of his release that members of cabinet and his ministry had been most concerned about the need to offset the erosion of the buying power of employees at the lower levels of the wage scale. The new rates are a reflection of that concern. The concern was going to take seven months to come into operation. That concern over seven months, I think, is slow concern. That concern about the buying power of people who are going to get $3.65 an hour came after the minister's concern about the gradual imposition of this increase on the employers of the province over a seven-month period.

I don't know whether we should get terribly exercised about which group you talk about first, but it seems to me that the two-stage aspect of the announcement, serving to alert employers in a gradual way to the implementation of the ultimate increase to $3.65 an hour for employees, followed by this little worry about the erosion of buying power over the preceding five years, was really too little and too late, which brings me to the point I think we have to address.

The government as a whole, of which you are a member, in my view wants to introduce the principle of indexing on every single receivable it's got coming: every fee, licence and charge; every dollar bill it's got coming from anybody. Every receipt it wants to index. Everything that has to do with money going out, every cheque, every piece of legislation that deals with money going out, it doesn't want to index at all. It wants to index receipts but doesn't want to index cheques. I can't make more than passing reference to bills before the House, but it certainly wants to index what people pay here. It doesn't want to index what is obviously a figure in a statute that should be indexed to protect the buying power of those people least able to withstand inflation; those are the working poor of the province who have to get by on minimum wage.

The minister's comments that the increase will come in stages to make it easy on employers sounds to me as though

[ Page 3491 ]

the minister, if he won't index it.... He talks about the employers first and then as an afterthought says: "After seven months we'll do something and it will go a little way towards easing the erosion that has taken place over the preceding four years." That, I think, can be characterized as too little and too late. It would have been nice if the minister could have got those situations reversed.

I do want to say to the minister that he should seriously consider this, if he is going to follow the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) and others in indexing: if you are going to index what is coming in, then you'd better make sure you index what is going out. That is a fairly good principle.

I don't intend to be very long in this estimate, for a change. Other speakers have dealt with larger questions, questions of policy and some principle. Here is a question from the Corporation of the District of Surrey on the employment opportunity program and the cutbacks in funding to the municipality's summer program. The number of students approved by the time the activities had to be organized and planned — approved by the time Surrey was in the field — was the huge figure of 59. This was a reduction of over 50 percent from the 1979 figure. Surrey, as my colleague the first member will be only too pleased to tell you, is the largest municipality in B.C., with a population of, it says here, approximately 125,000. It sometimes seems to me we have a voting population of 135,000 who seem to write to us every day. Certainly it is the largest municipality in B.C. It is a community with a most varied socio-economic base. It is certainly one with a high proportion of low-income families. If you go through the annual reports of your colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and other ministers who administer portfolios that deal with problems, you will see as an emanating source — if that's not a tautology — School District 36 or the district of Surrey. It will show up in those reports time and time again as being over the provincial per capita average as a problem source, whether we are talking about single-parent families or the proportion of people on some form of assistance.

In only one area, and that's probably single young people on allowances, will we be less than the provincial per capita average; that's because we're not downtown. My colleague the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) may have had something to do with that in years gone by; that's another debate.

If ever a municipality needed help in terms of summer programs and getting young people to work, because there's not much of a transit system — if I may say to you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Labour and to my colleague, the first member for Surrey — where people can get to summer jobs, if ever there is a place that does need the kind of help that's got to be planned in advance, not waiting for last minute decisions, it is our municipality of Surrey.

The characteristics can't be overlooked and should be given close attention. The applications were submitted only after the closest consultation with line managers in terms of assessing programs and the ways in which the organization can make an impact on providing employment. The impact is curtailed. Students with previous experience will now be unemployed in a municipality that already finds difficulty in providing sufficient job opportunities in the area. Regarding the reduction of funds in the labouring programs, our organization has offered viable work experience for youths over the last five years. It will be restricted unless it receives an additional allocation.

It is important to bring to your attention, Mr. Minister, what has already occurred in 1980 and has led to our present disappointment with the funding allocation. We received a letter dated January 10 from the employment opportunities program indicating that we should anticipate our allocation for 1980 to be approximately the same as that of 1979. We contacted the ministry. We have not yet received funding for the parks and recreation program. We were advised the budget for the 1980 Provincial Youth Employment Program had been finalized and at this time they could not offer any encouragement regarding additional funding, etc.

We've passed supply estimates; we passed that bill that gave you some extra money; we've passed all sorts of legislation, but no planning could take place as recently as the end of May. I don't know what the latest is — frankly, I did not know until yesterday at 2 o'clock that Labour would be debated yesterday and today — but that is not good enough for a municipality south of the river with the kinds of problems that I have outlined to you, the kind of socio-economic base of Surrey, the eastern part of Delta and the western part of Langley.

On my last point, I once had the pleasure of introducing a visitor to this chamber who had been the central figure in a worldwide news story. He became a freeman of the city of London. He was a Member of Parliament in Great Britain for many years. His name was Marcus Lipton. He was one of those who said that there was indeed a third man in the conspiracy of Burgess and MacLaine. The story that broke about the presence of that master spy, Kim Philby, broke when Marcus Lipton was in this chamber some years ago. His family lives in the Deputy Speaker's riding. I happen to know the family well. I mention it because I got permission.

Two of the things that the grand-nephew cherishes are a signed photograph of the Premier of the province and a photograph of his soccer coach, who shall be nameless. He was a grade A honour student. In my view he could have gone to any university in this province. He was a year ahead of his time. He chose not to, because this young fellow has got a desire to work with wood. He went back to the country that his father came from. He was an apprentice for a little while there, got to know the tools and so on, but he came back. He was born in British Columbia. He is a Canadian citizen. He's 18½ years of age and he wants to work in wood. As I say, he was an honour student throughout all his high school days, he was an accelerated student and could have been in any program at all.

Let me read a letter referring to this young student:

"I wish to bring to your attention the appalling state of the B.C. apprenticeship program. My son was indentured with Earthwood Manufacturing Ltd., Richmond, on February 28. He's recently received notification that his first class at the vocational institute in Burnaby will commence on September 8, 1981"

That's 19 months after signing his apprenticeship that he gets his first class.

As an honour student — I don't think I need to go through that record again.... And I'm, not getting combative about it. I'm not sure that any of us have done a job with this. I'm not sure the labour movement fully escapes some criticism about this either. Let me be the first to say that.

"Governments in this province have failed totally in recognizing the need for facilities and instructors

[ Page 3492 ]

that would enable young people to enter the workforce. I urge Premier Bennett and his government to consider again that the vast sums of money that will be spent on showpieces in the lower mainland would not be better used in upgrading and extending the technical establishments for the journeyman workers-to-be. We constantly hear of the material riches of this province, but they will count for nothing unless we have the skilled workers to recover and process them. Brian Lipton, Delta. "

That's the young fellow that I happen to have known for 11 out of the past.... Well, I've known him for longer than that, but I've had personal contact with that young man and his family intimately for the last 11 years.

We're going to spend a lot of time, I think, in this chamber talking about coal deposits, economic development, employment opportunities, BCIT and, one of these days, universities and so on. We're going to need more BCITs and money to BCITs than we are money to UBCs if all of this other stuff is meaningful, if we are going to place our feet on the path towards those kinds of technological improvements that you're telling us about from time to time in these press releases. If we're going to talk about lead and zinc smelters, copper smelters — and you often are — and the technological spin-offs from those things in the metallurgical industry, then you're going to be talking about the Brian and Philip Liptons of the world. That's what you're going to be talking about.

Mr. Minister, there is no point, in that case, in training hairdressers and bodybashers. The majority of the students who have gone through the problem in the last 20 years that I've been involved in discussions either in this chamber or observing from that gallery when I was a full-time administrative officer of the New Democratic Party.... Most of the apprentices who've gone through have either been driving spikes into 2-by-4s or straightening out automobile bodies. And this is the golden state? This is where the brain power is going to be?

I used to get into these philosophical debates on labour, but I'm refraining from it because I am not the lead-off spokesperson and I frankly don't feel that this estimate with the new minister is perhaps the most opportune time. I am serving notice, Mr. Minister, that we're going to have to, first of all, watch your performance very closely. I'm saying that when this estimate comes up again, as it will, next February or March — and I'm being kind; I'm not being personally abusive — your lead-off remarks will have to be a great deal more improved, qualitatively, than they were yesterday.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The first point which the hon. member raised, again covering occupational health and safety, was covered yesterday. Apparently I haven't demonstrated the concern that members of the opposition would like. I thought that schedule B as amended did reflect certain sensitivities, but I will take note of the particular disease to which the hon. member refers. I like your introductory remarks, Mr. Member. I was thinking that you had done the job and then suddenly there was a change in the schedule, which no one knew anything about. I think there's probably a lot of truth on both sides of the House as far as that statement is concerned.

I responded yesterday with respect to minimum wage. I advised the House that comparatives across the provinces in Canada were viewed. The stages, I thought, were probably fair to those that would have to pay. I appreciate that it would have been nice, perhaps, to raise it to $3.65 as of July 1, but I'm certainly not apologizing for the actions which the government did take. I might advise the members that the amount of the minimum wage in British Columbia is now in advance of Alberta and, I believe, Ontario, or it will be as of December 1. I might advise the House also that some of the thinking which I had at the time was that July 1 was just the start of the summer and that gave the students who are working for minimum wage the opportunity to take advantage of it. Exactly the same thinking went into the date of December 1, so that the increase then would catch those students who are going to be employed during the Christmas holidays and they would receive the same benefit.

With respect to the question raised under employment opportunities, this is not the first time I have been asked that question. The amount budgeted for local and regional governments was roughly $2.5 million. I can tell you I had the computer run off for me the allocation between all communities within the province. It was allocated fairly and almost to the third decimal point in proportion to population. I think the impact of the member's comments is that more funding should be available in this area generally towards local and regional governments. I will take note of that matter, including Surrey.

I agree with the last point the member raised and have for some time. It's been raised before, and if I'm having some difficulty in expressing myself to get the point across, I do hope time will change that. I'm well aware of the trades to which the member refers, Mr. Chairman. The seven trades do not incorporate the trades to which you refer. The seven designated trades are: machinists, electronic technicians, instrument mechanics, industrial electricians, millwrights, heavy-duty mechanics and diesel mechanics. Each one of those trades, by its very definition, will be the trade involved in accelerated economic activity, particularly in the area of mining and forestry. I also recognize that these are not the only trades, but they were the ones which were specifically designated under the program submitted by the Provincial Apprenticeship Board. I might also add that this information was found in a brief prepared by the ministry for the Occupational Training Council.

I would like to expand my answer on this point to the hon. member by telling him that in addition to the apprenticeship program, the accelerated portion to which reference has been made, these are the items which are of concern to me, my ministry and my government. One is to closely monitor the immigration of tradesmen to only allow for offshore recruitment in cases of exceptional need. It's very easy for me to say that, but we both know that immigration comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. But I do hope that that same government would be receptive to the concerns we have, so we don't abandon our young people and look offshore to fulfill our training and trades requirements.

There is going to be encouragement of employer and employee training committees. I've sought, received and will continue to seek the cooperation of the employers and the trade unions. One of the things which is really not in place but should be is forecasting needs. I'm finding out that we're getting sharp bulletins fired out of various offices, governments, ministries, saying that there is going to be a substantial shortage. Suddenly it's recognized they're talking in

[ Page 3493 ]

numbers which ate horrendous in size, and in no conceivable way could they be fulfilled in a short period of time.

It's interesting to note that once some profile was given to the trades and with the amount of discussion that has taken place in the last six months, I'm finding that it's starting to move. It moves slowly to start with, I'll admit. The momentum and the results, as far as first indications are concerned, are most encouraging — and we really haven't started yet.

Another item was mentioned yesterday, and I think the hon. member was referring to involving women in the trade unions. I recognize the small number. Most of the women in the trades are in the area of hairdressing. But one of the points which I have covered with my ministry is a way in which to increase the number of women in trade areas. I've noticed this is moving along. I don't think I want to expand on it, because I'm finding some difficulty in one area. The difficulty in some areas in the workplace is that there are times when women are not particularly interesting in enrolling. As a matter of fact, I pursued this a bit further with one of the major trainers in the province. It's interesting to note that he said the opportunity was there, but because of shift work and types of working conditions the ladies in this particular company — and it's a huge company — declined the opportunity. Now I'm not saying that's typical, but I might mention to you that that was my first experience on this.

There is going to be planning for long-range initiatives to maintain adequate future training of tradesmen, so we're forecasting.

There is also another area which I am concerned about, and that is encouraging the apprenticeship of native Indians. I've made some inquiries in this area and am finding that the information being passed on to me is not satisfactory at all. I don't think it's really proper to tell you some of the reasons which were given to me, but I found them somewhat disturbing.

Those cover the items, and I will try to assure you, Mr. Member, that next February or March I'll be on my best behaviour and try to do a better job for you.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: I would like to talk about the human rights legislation and the Human Rights Code, which this minister is responsible for. Somehow a memo which was written to the minister came into my possession.

AN HON. MEMBER: In a brown envelope?

MS. BROWN: That's right. It was written by a Mr. Guilbault, when he was the acting director. Although it was written "Private and Confidential, " it was riot nailed up on the wall of the press gallery.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Was it addressed to me?

MS. BROWN: Yes, it was addressed to the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To me or to my predecessor?

MS. BROWN: It was addressed to Mr. Jack Heinrich. Do you know him? You know him very well; okay.

Anyway, this memo dealt with the crisis of human rights legislation as a result of some court decisions handed down by the supreme court in September of last year. In his memo he said: "There are three gaping holes in the Human Rights Code since the supreme court decisions of September 21 and October 25.''

I'll just mention them very quickly. One has to do with the decision that there would be no discrimination which offends against the code if the person involved had an honest belief — "because of an honest belief.'' That was the first decision. The second one is that there is no basis in law for the assertion that the code authorizes imposition of "vicarious liability. — The third decision had to do with reasonable cause — that an employer could refuse a person if the employer had "reasonable cause to believe... " etc.

The memo, which is a very excellent memo — a super memo — goes on to say:

"The 'honest belief' defence, as sufficient against an allegation of discrimination without reasonable cause, runs counter to the whole history of human rights legislation in America. Anti-discrimination legislation does not deal with prejudice. It is not a thought police. The motivations, belief system or intentions of the respondent have been considered irrelevant where rights of complainants have been abrogated. "

The reason I'm raising this is that the memo also had a number of recommendations to the minister in it. I'm wondering what he is going to do about these three things, which I'll repeat: honest belief, vicarious liability, and reasonable cause.

The other thing that he talked about was this:

"The denial of 'vicarious liability' in human rights complaints, as a result of the Nelson-Gubbins-Byron Price decision of October 25, 1979, is possibly more serious than the 'honest belief' defence in its impact in undermining the effectiveness of the Human Rights Code."

All the way through this memo — to you, Mr. Minister — he talked about ways in which the Human Rights Code was being undermined. And I'll remind you that he referred to it initially as "three gaping holes" in the human rights legislation.

The third area of concern is a proposition that "the respondent would have reasonable cause to refuse to employ a person if facts existed which were unknown to the respondent at the time of refusal but otherwise would have been a basis for refusal." He goes on to say: "Such a position seriously threatens the argument of the discriminatory factor being only one of a number of factors. Regardless of this, all of the weight of the discriminatory factor in the decision at present constitutes unlawful discrimination." It is a very long memo. If you've lost it I would be very happy to Xerox my copy and send it on to you, because it is super. It is excellent and I am stunned that there has been no action on it. In his very last paragraph he says:

"Action on these points is imperative. Cases routinely settled are now in limbo. Human Rights staff are demoralized at the prospect of limited effectiveness in gaining meaningful settlements where discriminatory impact is found" — this is coming from the acting director of the human rights branch — "and protected groups will soon discover that rights they are only beginning to exercise with some assurance have withered away as a result of

[ Page 3494 ]

legal convolutions. I recommend that legal opinions be sought from leading thinkers in the field of human rights, such as Walter Tamopolsky of Ontario, and a decision be taken to appeal the Gubbins case and to immediately draft amendments to the legislation to close the gaping holes now preventing its effective enforcement. "

My question to the minister is: have these recommendations which were made to him by the acting director of the Human Rights Commission in November of last year been acted upon? We have not yet received in this House the amendments which are to close the gaping holes.

Still on the Human Rights Code, there are two other issues which I'd like to bring to the minister's attention. One is that under the act it is still possible for landlords to discriminate in terms of renting accommodation to people on welfare, people who are handicapped or families with children. That is another hole in the legislation.

In addition, I received a letter in May of this year from someone in Naramata — I think the minister got a copy of this letter — talking about blatant sexual discrimination as practised by the British Columbia Youth Soccer Association because of its refusal to allow his daughter to play soccer.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Has it been changed? Well, okay. Apparently the soccer association is now allowing his daughter to play soccer, so that need not be handled.

The last complaint I had about a failure of the human rights legislation was the business of credit. Does the minister know that in the event of a divorce, creditors can arbitrarily decide to cut off a woman's credit, even if she is still capable of handling her credit rating? Under the act she has no protection whatsoever.

The act has one more weakness, and this is in its equal pay section. Presently, as the act reads, it supports the concept of equal pay for equal work, but it does not deal with the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. In Burnaby at this time there is a strike involving 400 workers who are locked in a labour dispute with the Kenworth trucking company because that company has refused to pay the women who are data processors a wage equal to that it is paying the unskilled summer help which it is hiring. In order to work as a data processor at Kenworth — they are all women — you have to have two years' experience and your starting wage is $7.07 an hour. Summer help — unskilled help, however — is hired in the factory at $8.17 an hour. The union involved tried to negotiate to have the data processors' wage at least equal to that of the casual summer help, and the company has refused to deal with this. A spokesman for the company, Mr. Ed. Bluen, says that it is not a major economic issue to Kenworth — "I guess you could say it is a matter of principle. "

Mr. Hugh Ladner of Kelowna was the lawyer who had hearings on this particular issue. In bringing down his decision, Mr. Ladner says: "It is not my responsibility to correct the ills of our society." He rejected the union's complaint that this was a blatant case of discrimination and that there was absolutely no reason why the women data processors with two years' experience were being paid less than casual workers being hired as summer help.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would hope that the minister would introduce an amendment to that section of the Human Rights Code, which now says "equal pay for equal work." The amendment would add to that "equal pay for work of equal value. " This is only one case where a labour dispute around this issue is involved at this time, but it happens in a number of other instances. That particular section of the act needs to be amended. So much for the Human Rights Code.

In December of last year the minister assured the world that he would be establishing a women's labour office for British Columbia. I'm kind of curious to know what's happened to that. He said: "I think it would probably be an information-gathering centre and it would give information.... He got a lot of support from every sector of the community for that, because we do need a very active, very bright and very sharp women's bureau that will distribute career and job information and handle the whole business of counselling and helping to get women into the kind of programs he described earlier. He said an opportunity opened up and none of the women accepted it. Also the minister received a number of briefs in support of this and I'm kind of anxious to know what has happened to that brilliant promise which was made on December 8, 1979. What is the status of that at this time?

There are a couple of problems with the Factories Act. I think the minister received a letter on May 12 dealing with the problems in the Factories Act.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Have you got a copy of that?

MS. BROWN: Yes. If the minister's lost his copy I'd be very happy to give him a copy of mine.

There are two particular sections in the Factories Act which employers are still using to keep women out of nontraditional jobs. The suggestion which has been made to the minister is that these two sections be amended to extend the protection presently in the act to cover male workers as well. There really isn't any reason why these two sections should have the word "female" in them, because they're very good sections and should cover all workers. That would be one way of preventing employers from using this as a loophole. They are the sections that deal with the working locale, sections 23, 24, 30(l) and 30(2). It has to do, as I said, with the restroom facilities, seating arrangements and decent floor covering. These kinds of things really should be available to every worker. It's unusual that the act should discriminate and say only female workers should have this kind of protection. I would like to see the act amended to extend this protection to cover people of all sexes.

The minister has answered a couple of questions to do with occupational health, but I'm wondering whether he has taken specifically into account some of the occupational health hazards which women are experiencing in the workplace, specifically to do with our reproductive organs, our ability to bear children and this kind of thing. One of the things that office workers in particular have to deal with is a toner used in the Xerox machine, which is called nitropyrene. Apparently lab studies done at the Texas Medical Research Centre in Galveston have indicated that this toner affects the chromosomes of cultured cells and transforms normal cells to cancerous cells causing birth defects. Xerox, have admitted that they knew about this a year ago, but they did nothing about it and have presently just agreed to reduce

[ Page 3495 ]

the amount the chemical toner that's being used. They have not recalled any of their older machines that still use the old batches of it.

Restaurant workers have to work around microwave ovens. There's been some report about long-reaching effects if there are any leaks from the microwave oven. I don't know whether the minister has taken this into account or not.

I know he has dealt with the issue of pesticides. Also, I'm not quite sure whether he has taken into account the stress that leads to alcoholism and which shows up in a number of other areas in the lives of these people, such as in child abuse.

The final thing I have here is "estrogen." I'm not quite sure what the particular issue is that has to do with estrogen, but maybe the minister knows.

If you wouldn't mind answering those questions, I'd appreciate it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think I'll pass on the last question.

On the second-to-last question, perhaps we could have an amendment. I wasn't aware of the section in the Factories Act to which you refer, Madam Member. However, I will take note of it.

I would like to go back and refer to the first letter which was apparently sent to me. I wonder whether or not I could have the date of that letter. I have some question as to whether I ever did get that letter.

MS. BROWN: What did you do with your copy?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's the problem; I might not ever be able to find it. I'm not sure of having received it. I'm just wondering whether or not I could have the date, please.

MS. BROWN: The date of that letter is November 28, 1979. As I indicated earlier, I would be very happy to....

Because I've cut off all the evidence about how I got the letter, I'd be very happy to Xerox it and share it with you.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will accept the offer. It seems to me that I was sworn in on the 23rd of that month. For the first week I was probably somewhat detached and in shock. I can't recall ever receiving anything like that. Shortly thereafter there was a rather difficult labour dispute. I'm not making excuses at all. I don't recall ever receiving that letter, but appropriate inquiries will be made.

With respect to the item on vicarious liability.... As I recall from some time ago, that involves rent. The decision of Mr. Justice Martin Taylor and the Supreme Court of British Columbia is now being appealed. It seems to me that I authorized the appeal of that decision many months ago.

With respect to the matter raised concerning "honest belief, " I believe that the author of that letter was involved in some discussion. The decision of the B.C. court of appeal in the case — I believe it was Branca's obiter dictum — was really overruled by Mr. Justice Martland in the Supreme Court of Canada, who wrote on behalf of the majority. I cannot give you the particulars, Madam Member, but I understand that he repudiated the matter of Branca's views in the court of appeal, and that the Supreme Court of Canada didn't really interpret the matter of "honest belief" in the way in which it is recited in the correspondence which you have. I can't give you any further particulars on that without having a detailed look into it, I hope you appreciate that.

Regarding the matter you raised involving the Status of Women's labour office, yes, I did say what I did; I think it was sometime last December. It should be readily apparent that that has not really come to pass in the manner in which I thought it would. However, I might add that all of the items which were raised are really being addressed within the ministry by the director of the employment opportunities program.

MS. BROWN: No, they're totally different.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It may very well be that this is not a sufficiently high profile to satisfy what you feel the objectives ought to be. I accept your criticism.

The other items you raised contain some substance. I don't think I should enter into debate on these items, giving some thought to them. I can't argue with your statement: equal pay for work of equal value. I understand the case to which you refer, but I'm not about to discuss or debate that topic in the House if it's a matter of a dispute that should be settled by a collective agreement, particularly when negotiations are ongoing.

With respect to the other item, I don't have particulars on it, but there were three items that you raised. The last was "reasonable cause," was it not? I haven't got any particulars, but I gather there are two schools of thought on it. Some think it's too broad and others think it's too narrow. I gather that there has been protection afforded in the areas of maternity and handicap and there are cases to support it, but without finding out a lot of details I'm not prepared to speak on it at all. I'm sorry.

On the other items — on toner and Xerox — I can't raise anything, but that intrigues me. I would ask if I could have a copy of that article that you have.

MS. BROWN: I think the minister should put me on his research staff. This is ridiculous.

I would prefer that no decision is made about the issues raised in this memo until you've read it, because I think you are quite right. It needs a lot more serious thought and it probably should not have been sent to you three days after your appointment, when you were still in shock.

I just want to say very quickly and briefly how very disappointed I am that you have decided to back down on your commitment to establish a women's bureau in B.C. That job cannot be done by anyone else. Most of the hard data that we get, the research that's done and the counselling and information on women in the labour force that we have in this country comes out of the Women's Bureau in Ontario, as part of the Ontario government's Women Bureau, which should be a model for every other women's bureau in Canada — and also from the federal government. So if there's anything at all that I can do to help the minister to rethink this particular decision I would really appreciate it.

I just want to very quickly give him those sections in the Factories Act again that need to be amended. They are sections 23, 24, 31, dealing with the inspector talking about seating, etc., and 32, dealing with the business about the surface of the floor, and simply suggesting that it be amended to extend to cover all workers and not just women who work, because those are very important issues. I will have this memo Xeroxed and sent over to you as quickly as possible.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to cover a couple of

[ Page 3496 ]

subjects that I have dealt with earlier in the House. They are subjects I feel must be brought to the attention of the government — issues that are developing in our workforce today. We all realize that industrial hygiene and safety are far more important today and are going to affect every worker in the workforce. More so, it's going to affect the society because of the lasting damage that some of our new industrial development is causing to those who are working in it.

Earlier on, in questions to the Minister of Labour, I brought to his attention the problem that happened in the shipyard of Esquimalt, when the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was doing his remodelling job on the Queen of Prince Rupert. Maybe it was a mistake, and I will say it was. There was in this mistake a large group of workers who were exposed to a high concentration of asbestos dust, which each one of them breathed in. What really bothers me, the workers and the trade union movement is the complete callous disregard in that industry for bringing the information out to those who were exposed of what actually happened.

When I first brought it to the attention of the minister and when the first inspections were made by the Workers' Compensation Board, the inspector never even went on board the ship. It took a second complaint to get tests made on the atmosphere that the people were working in. The first test or the first exposure was on a Tuesday; it came to my attention on Wednesday; I brought it to the attention of the House on Thursday; Friday the inspector attended the yard. It wasn't until Tuesday the following week that tests were made on the atmosphere, and all through that period, through the weekend, on a 24-hour-a-day basis people were working in that air that was charged, or suspected to be charged, with dangerous levels of asbestos.

I feel it was a complete disgrace to all the great work the Workers' Compensation Board has done, all the great work that many, many members in the Ministry of Labour have pioneered to bring in. They sat on that report; it took over two weeks to release it, to come up with the answer that the level of asbestos was over the accepted danger level, and for two weeks people were working in it. At the same time there were TV news reports where the employer said that that ship was as clean as his desk. To me this was deceptive. I don't say it would be deliberately deceptive, because I know you would rule me out of order, but it was deceptive: and I say so because later on, when it was proven that this particular atmosphere was dangerous, when this ship was completed and the report was released.... I imagine down the red tape there will be a certain fine, or a tap on the wrist will be given to the employer. When this ship was ready to sail, again I raised it and asked what tests had been made. A test was made, and in less than 24 hours after that test was made, the results came in that they were below the safe level required by the particular compensation regulation.

This is the part that, I think, really should be stressed to the minister and to the whole ministry: these levels established by compensation boards in industrial nations of a safe level for asbestos as autopsies are conducted and as doctors and laboratories make tests and studies. They have found that there is no safe level for asbestos. Because of that recognition, because of the knowledge that has been gained, they have continually lowered that particular section on what is a hazard, and each year it's getting lower.

It bothered me that the department of industrial hygiene can sit on information that concerns the health of the workers as if it's some God-endowed information that only they can have. When the unions and I as the MLA representing many of those workers asked what the level was, the result came out that it was below the 0. 5 degree, but when I asked how far below it was I was denied that information. If it was nil, it should have been said it was nil; if it was 0.4, if it was 0.3, if it was 0. 1, I think the workers who have been exposed over a period of time to a high degree of asbestos dust in the air should have the knowledge and should be supplied with the information what level it is once it got below the level of 0.5.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This is the part that I say is important, because as they go on working in different industries, they're going to come up for medical tests. I feel that each worker who was on that ship and who was exposed to that level of industrial asbestos dust should be supplied by the Workers' Compensation Board with a full and detailed report of what levels they were working in and what the level was when they finished up. Statistically, in later years a certain percentage of those will be affected by that dust. They should be supplied now with that information, so that when doctors are testing them, when they move on to different cities and towns, they can go to a doctor, and if they have lung diseases or respiratory problems, they have that knowledge and they can say: "Yes, back in 1980 I worked in a shipyard and was exposed to a high level of asbestos dust." This evidence should be supplied by your ministry; I think you have a responsibility.

The part that really bothered me was that it took continual badgering by the trade union movement and the MLA to expose this problem and bring it to the ministry. I feel it is not the responsibility of the trade unionists, or the MLA, but that of the Workers' Compensation Board and the Ministry of Labour to be the pioneers, the investigators, and to be out in front to protect the health of those in the industry. There are many industries that are not organized or who do not have the collective knowledge or power of a trade union. It should be the inspectors who are out there looking for this danger. It should be the inspectors out on that job who are exposing it, bringing it to a head, and not being pushed willy-nilly by groups that happen to be organized.

I think that this is one of the remodelling jobs that....

I hope the new minister goes in there with the idea that his responsibility is not to protect and deceive the industrial employer, but to protect the health of each and every one of those workers, because good health, and the right to good health, is not some fringe benefit that is granted to those who are well organized, but it is a right of every British Columbian.

I hope that the minister, when he looks at it, will look at it with an open mind. I hope that he is prepared to change the approach and not accept the attitude that certain people within the department can sit on this information and that responsible people, like the trade union movement or the MLA, can be denied information that is there for the protection of the people.

I would like to go on and discuss another issue that has been part of my active involvement in construction and the trade union movement over the years. It is also part of my active involvement with youth groups. That is to support your new approach to apprenticeship training. I agree completely with you that we must look at apprenticeship training in this province. Not only is it a necessity, but again, it is a right to those who are coming up in our work force.

I know that if we are going to make certain priorities,

[ Page 3497 ]

maybe you are wise to pick as a priority that we provide immediate employment. But there are other trades and other citizens and other students who may never become industrial electricians, who may never have the ability to be a diesel mechanic. But they, too, Mr. Minister, should have the right that we in society are going to accept the responsibility to prepare them to be able to go out and earn a good, fair and decent wage. To allow kids to go through 12 years of schooling, and when they reach the end, if, for some unknown reason, they have capabilities to be industrial designers, or their physical capabilities are not those they'll need in the coal fields, but they do have talents, they do have trade skills that are needed to keep our society in operation, to develop our society.... There should be through your department, through the employer councils, through the trade union movement, and through the educational branch, that we come up with a new concept in education and training for apprenticeships, one that is going to give the kids of today more hope than some of them have right now.

I know you can talk about motherhood issues, if you don't have a trade, you get into trouble and it costs us $40,000 a year to keep people in jail. We all know these statistics. I know a few will go to jail but the vast majority of kids will not. They will not cost society $40,000, but they will cost society a lot more in frustration and discouragement and a lot more because they are not producing the goods and resources that they are capable of. We will be losing their talents and abilities and we will not be utilizing the resources that make up British Columbia, for part of those resources are the youth of this province.

In closing, I am not one who is going to jump on the minister because he is new. Others of us are new in the House this year. I feel that it is really important that we look at it with a little new twist to it. If we are going to have apprenticeship training, don't be afraid to change what has happened before. In many cases a person had to be locked into a four- or five-year indenture to a certain company. I feel we have to be a little more flexible; we must be prepared to combine the technical training that can be given in the schools with the ability to move apprentices around from one company to another so they can get the specialized training that is needed. I will use construction as an example: there will be some who can work with a framing crew and next year they can go to work in a factory producing cabinets, We need to set up a curriculum of training for each and every trade and to insist that they go through the different types of training. For companies that can take a person for two or three months, they should be encouraged to take him, but there should be a monitoring effect from your department and the trade union movement and the other groups who should be vitally involved. This whole program of training should not be considered — as I said in Health — a fringe benefit but an investment by our province in a lot of great kids who are going to pioneer the north, build the cities and produce the wealth that we are going to need.

In closing, I say again that these are the things I think are important. As we go through your estimates, in certain sections of it I would like to bring up some special involvement on certain parts of your ministry.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have one quick answer to your opening comments with respect to asbestos. I have come to the conclusion that it is primarily one of attitude among some employers. The fact is, I think a number of them recognize that what they are doing is really taking a chance. They know it in advance, but let's take the chance. I have come to the conclusion that that is probably what happened in the case which you and I had some discussions on earlier in the year.

The matter which was raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) I think is typical of a problem of attitude by employers. I suppose there are a number of ways to address it. I need not raise them now, but I am aware of it and perhaps will do something as time goes on. My word "perhaps" is quite strong, to tell you the truth.

I am glad you are on record, Mr. Member, with respect to your last item regarding apprenticeships. I think what you were alluding to is compression of the time-span of the conventional apprenticeship period, because this is a matter which we are now addressing. Also we are considering the portability of the apprenticeship period and whether or not it is going to go for a period of two years or a year and a half and somebody wants out for six months or a year and then moves in to some other area of technology where, in fact, there is a real demand. I want you to know that this matter is being considered and that is the very reason why there was an appointment within the ministry of an assistant deputy minister with a wealth of experience in the area of training and apprenticeship. That is why he is in the role he now occupies. He was appointed on April 1. He was back about May 15 and he's been going gung ho on it ever since.

MR. MITCHELL: I would just like to add to what the minister said. It's not only employers; there are a lot of employees out there who really don;t understand the danger of industrial hygiene. This is a program that has to be sold by competent inspectors to industry and industrial workers. Their health is the most important part of their future and it's a necessity. I'm glad to hear you say that there is a possibility that they are looking at the affordability of training. I think this is the only way we're going to have to go.

MR. COCKE: I had a little chat with the minister last night about a quarter to six. During that chat I asked whether or not the minister had his eye at all on the question of right-to-work. I hear one thing and see other things in this government, with respect to their attitude toward right-to-work. Mr. Chairman, you and I know that right-to-work is a euphemism for labour-union busting, for creating an atmosphere within the workplace where people can be better enslaved than they can when they have the protection of their own association. It's pure and simple; that's the way I see it. Of course, the great advocate of this in this province is the ICBA, which is the Independent Canadian Businessmen Association. They are the same group that works very hard in your riding. As a matter of fact most of their brochures, I note, are printed in Abbotsford. It strikes me that the member for that area should probably be aware of the town of Abbotsford.

In any event, the ICBA have had a real influence in this party. The previous Minister of Labour wrote a letter to the governor of a state in the Union asking about their referendum on right-to-work. He then sort of sluffed it off: "Well, you have to get as much information as you can. " The fact is he's keeping his options open depending on which way the party goes. I'm asking the Minister of Labour how he feels about the whole question of right-to-work. I note the Chairman is uneasy about this question.

[ Page 3498 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chairman is not uneasy about the question. The Chairman would like to draw to the attention of the member our standing orders and, of course, the rules that govern debate in committee. I would remind the member that the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Clearly, hon. member, the Chair's interpretation at this point is that the member is venturing into the area of legislation, whether required or otherwise.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, you're quite right that one must not discuss legislation. That's why I'm discussing the minister's attitude toward the right-to-work proposition. You see, Mr. Chairman, you don't need legislation. What you need is a minister that has a mind to see to it that the people in the workplace are not going to get the protection of his office and you have something that is tantamount to a right-to-work situation. It can't ever get that bad unless the government goes crazy, and I think they've learned a lesson, judging from the way they've treated the matter at their conventions. There is still a concern. I have a real concern because I know there are some heavy-duty members of that caucus. I may only mean that by the bathroom scale. Nonetheless, there are some people over there who have made remarks in this chamber that lead me to believe that they would favour that kind of proposition in our province. So, Mr. Chairman, I just wonder how the Minister of Labour feels with respect to that whole question, and how he feels he can handle the ICBA, who in their most recent bulletin that I just read a few minutes ago were raising Cain about farmworkers having some protection, and charging that it was Cesar Chavez that has moved his troops into Canada. Poor little Cesar. I'm sure that he would be thrilled to know that he had all that strength, that he could come up and move his troops to Canada and do a job on these poor farmers in this province. I would just like to know how the minister feels about the whole question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've heard this said again and again. It's been a policy of the government that what is conveniently defined by the member as.... I defy him to define it, to be honest with you. To satisfy the member, I do not support the item he has been referring to in some bulletin. I don't know what the bulletin is. I still maintain that we have done our level best to preserve the tradition of good, strong collective bargaining and the right to be represented by unions if you so wish. Many people do and it is fully supported. I don't know what more I can really say. I think that really, with all due respect to the member, he is looking for a fly in the ointment and, to be honest with you, I haven't found it there and I don't think I will.

MR. COCKE: One doesn't necessarily have to look in the ointment for a fly. I've been here for 11 years and I've heard the speeches across the floor of this House, and I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not just a remote possibility that that government has flirted with this whole question. I don't think that it's irresponsible for a member of this House to find out what the Ministry of Labour's attitude is and the attitude of the minister who is in charge of that.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) might have his own opinion. They have never been opinions that have weighed heavily with me. I don't lose much sleep at night worrying about his opinions, as I'm sure he will not worry about mine. We have about the same respect for one another today as we've had for a number of years and will have for some years to come. I feel that his job of growing tulips was probably far more important than the one he is doing now.

MS. SANFORD: I had a couple of questions relating to some of the statements made yesterday. Did the minister, yesterday afternoon, indicate to the Legislature that he had received approval from the Treasury Board for funding with respect to his new, expanded apprenticeship program? Did he make any reference about funding there? I wonder if I can get the minister to respond to that for me,

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't recall if I said it or not, but I can assure the member that I have approval.

MS. SANFORD: How much?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Quite substantial; but, in fairness, it is over a period of time. As a matter of fact, Madam Member, I have the press releases being typed right now and I was hoping to have it this afternoon. Maybe I'll have it tomorrow.

MS. SANFORD: I am assuming that the press release will state what the article in the Vancouver Sun stated a couple of weeks ago, I believe — this imminent announcement of a $14.4 million program over a period of two years. Am I making the announcement on behalf of the minister this afternoon? It is not quite typed. All right.

This money is going to be handed to the various companies of the province. I know my colleague, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), yesterday raised this whole issue and his concerns about the approach the minister is taking with respect to trying to have industry carry its fair share of the load in terms of training the skilled trades people that it needs. I am concerned about the fact that the minister is adopting this particular approach to the problem. I know he said yesterday that this was the recommendation of his newly appointed apprenticeship board. I doubt very much if that was a unanimous recommendation of the apprenticeship board.

Yesterday the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke indicated that the Employers Council of the province understands that it's the obligation of the employers to take on the job of training apprentices. Sure they haven't done it — and it seems to me that the minister should have been applying pressure, or threats if necessary, with respect to some sort of levy system or whatever else, rather than this $14.4 million that the minister is going to announce later this afternoon when the press release is typed. Surely they understand that it's their obligation. Surely the minister recognizes, even though he made reference to the fact that the immigration policy is one of the federal government, that Canada is no longer the attractive place that it used to be for these highly skilled, highly trained European tradesmen. They don't want to come to Canada the way they used to, and that's one of the reasons we have this critical shortage at this time.

[ Page 3499 ]

But it's not only the Employers Council as such; it's various people in the industry who are saying: "Look, it is our obligation and we must do it.---And still the minister insists on putting out some $14.4 million of taxpayers' money in order to have these employers carry on a responsibility that they know is theirs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The president of Placer Development, Ross Duthie, has said that the industries that rely on skilled tradespeople have "an obligation to train apprentices." He knows it. Here is one of the big corporations of the province saying, "We have this obligation," yet the minister is going to go ahead and give out this taxpayers' money holus-bolus, at a time when they've got a hiring freeze, for heaven's sake. They can't even hire physiotherapists or all these other people required to carry out basic services to people, but he's going to hand this over to the employers so that they can do their duty. It is their obligation; they recognize it. All they need is some prodding from that minister and, as I say, the possibility of a threat through a levy system or some other way.

Mr. Duthie of Placer Development also says: "Even if there is a possibility that the workers may leave after training is completed, companies must assume the responsibility of helping to maintain adequate numbers of skilled workers in the economy." Now these are the industry's leaders saying this, and yet this minister decides that the best way to handle the problem is to hand out money to these companies so that they can do what is their obligation and their responsibility.

I know this was dealt with yesterday, but it angers me. I just don't think that the minister has done enough work on this, and I know it's his favourite pet project. I'm also disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has been unable to work out any kind of program with Lloyd Axworthy, the federal minister. About $6 million of federal money will be spent. He mentioned yesterday that he didn't understand where I obtained that figure, but it will be spent this year in B.C., and I hope that the minister will cheek this out on his own. There is no organization, no cooperation, no sense at all of understanding that the province and the federal government can work together if this is the route that they have decided upon as the only way they can go.

Another point I would like to make that I did not make yesterday, Mr. Chairman, relates to the program now underway with the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to the old pensions — that is, those pensions that needed upgrading, that needed to be looked at in terms of the increase in the cost of living, which could not be anticipated some 15 or 20 years ago when injured workers went on pension. It has taken them six years to implement the changes in legislation which permitted the Workers' Compensation Board to have a look at these old pensions in order to upgrade them so that they would more closely reflect what has happened in terms of the value of today's dollar. It took the Workers' Compensation Board six years to figure out how they could possibly upgrade these pensions so that they would be more in line with the value of today's dollar. Now why on earth would it take that long? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is yet another ex ample of the way in which the Workers' Compensation Board is interested more in saving money and keeping costs down than in serving the needs of the injured workers of the province.

I would like to request the minister at this stage to have a look at the possibility — and I realize that he has to relay this to the Workers' Compensation Board itself — of including widows, whose husbands would have been eligible for a review of their pensions had they lived, Is there any way that the inadequate pensions of the widows of these fatally injured workers could be upgraded at the same time? It's just now that this program is beginning in earnest. There was a slight attempt made last year to do some testing on the program, but really, Mr. Chairman, after six years, let's get the job done and let's include the widows' pensions as well. It's my understanding that they are not now included.

Just recently the minister appointed a mediator in the construction industry dispute, without a request from either the industry or the construction trades, As a matter-of fact, the minister was criticized by both sides....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Be careful.

MS. SANFORD: I have press clippings that say you were criticized.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Oh, I know that.

MS. SANFORD: Was the press in error again?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No.

MS. SANFORD: All right. So he was criticized by both sides, Mr. Chairman, for interfering prematurely in the general process of collective bargaining, and the two sides felt that in fact his appointment was detrimental to the successful negotiation of a contract.

I'm satisfied and very pleased that the two sides have resolved their differences. It appears that way at the moment, at least. But I'm interested in a comment that was made today by the minister, indicating that he will not appoint a mediator in the brewery dispute.

He's had a request from the brewery workers who are facing a lockout as of tomorrow, and he has indicated that he will not appoint a mediator there at this stage, that really the two sides need to have more time in which to resolve their differences.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to explain why he has taken these two completely different tacks in terms of those two disputes. I hope the minister will answer that right now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will confine my response to the last question raised by the hon. member for Comox. In the matter of the construction industry, I knew, by putting in two mediation officers — the job was to be shared — that there would be a fair amount of ventilation, and there would be some annoyance with me. I was quite prepared to be the meat in the sandwich, and I'll tell you why.

In that case the construction industry had not used the mediation services at all. The timing for it was critical. A mediator was not requested and I admit that. I'm not going to discuss it, because I think it's purposeless at this time to discuss the reasons and who should ask the questions and all of this. If I had appointed a mediator after the strike vote or the lockout vote was in and announced, the immediate accusation was coming that I'd stepped in, interfered, and in

[ Page 3500 ]

fact barred a lockout or a strike. So you can appreciate why the timing was such as it was. Of course, you can't knock success either. The construction dispute would appear to be resolved.

As a matter of personal interest, you might be interested in knowing that this was done on Friday. The following Saturday and Saturday night I wrote out in some detail the reasons why I did it. It's rather interesting to look back, because that was making a move before the ultimate conclusion of an event. Sometimes there is a little risk involved, and perhaps a little courage helps as well.

The hon. member refers to the case of the breweries and the fact that I will not appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner. There's quite a difference between a mediator and an 11C, and the brewery workers were asking for an IIC. In that case a mediator had been in.

I remember also that the mediator had worked; he has the ability to go back in. An IIC, I might tell you, leads the public to greater expectations of a solution to a problem.

I might also mention that there should be consent and cooperation between the parties. In this case right now with the brewery workers, there is considerable opposition by one of the parties. So what's the point of having an industrial inquiry commissioner appointed when in fact neither party is going to cooperate?

I don't know whether or not I have explained clearly to the member the reason for the difference. It's important. In one case there had never been mediation. Before it goes to the public, before they go out, I think it's important that we at least offer them the mediation services portion of the ministry. In the case of the breweries, they have had that advantage. I can't see myself arbitrarily appointing an industrial inquiry commissioner. They must cooperate with the mediation officers; there was a considerable degree of cooperation. Right now all the reports to me indicate that it was a good move.

MS. SANFORD: It's always interesting to watch a newly appointed minister, and to see how he does in his new portfolio. This minister, who was a rookie MLA when he was first appointed to the position of Minister of Labour, was particularly interesting to watch because of his background and history with respect to his political interests. We know that the minister, who is the member for Prince George, had worked very hard for another political party. I understand that he worked hard for the Liberals.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right.

MS. SANFORD: He raised money for the Liberals. He had a lot of friends in the legal profession, and outside of it, who were Liberals. So it's particularly interesting to watch this new minister.

For instance, I wondered how this new MLA, with his very strong Liberal background, was going to get along with members who have been Socreds for a long time. The MLA for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) just left the chamber. The MLA for Dewdney has been a Socred member for years and years. I was wondering how this member with his particularly Liberal philosophy was going to get along and fit in with MLAs who have long-established Social Credit backgrounds. I wondered how he was going to fit in with his other cabinet colleagues — you know, some of the others from northern areas, like the MLA for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) or the MLA for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). They have been long-time members of the Social Credit Party, I understand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we really must....

MS. SANFORD: Oh, this relates to his administrative responsibilities, I can assure you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The administrative responsibilities of the department and the minister. I really cannot accept comments about the personality of the minister when he is before the committee, or of other members.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not speaking about his personality at all, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about how he as a minister in this government would be able to carry out his administrative duties as Minister of Labour in conjunction with a group of people who really have a different philosophy and different background. At least, that is what one must assume. Even his own cabinet colleagues — somebody from the northern areas, like the MLA for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips).... I wondered whether they would be able to get along in cabinet. It's important that they are able to function and get along and present a united front and that sort of thing, is it not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, vote 146.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, all right, I will leave this.

I was interested that the minister seems to have fitted in very well in his new portfolio. He has quite easily adopted the philosophy of the government. He has demonstrated that, really, he fits very easily and very well into that mould. I can't understand why he stated so emphatically that he did have other interests before, and that he was a hard-working Liberal. Really, he has fitted in very well with all these northern MLAs. There has been no friction. The ideas, principles and the approach are all the same. I'd like to demonstrate that, Mr. Chairman.

I think that this minister has shown that he is keen on protecting the interests of the employers of the province — that's a long-established Social Credit tradition. As he demonstrated earlier, he is interested in paying out money to the employers of the province so they can carry out their own obligation — which even they recognize as their obligation. He's quite prepared to put taxpayers' money into that.

He's quite prepared to go along with cutbacks. I'm sure he's scrambling to find the $7 million that he's going to need for his apprenticeship program in this fiscal year. I think he's scrambling within his own ministry to get the necessary funds that he is going to be announcing this afternoon. I think some, of it's going to be left over from programs like the Youth Employment Program. I anticipate that not all of that money will be spent, and I think the minister will be attempting to latch onto that so he can help subsidize industry to carry out what industry recognizes is its own obligation. That's typical Social Credit philosophy and the minister seems to be fitting in very well with that along with the MLAs for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and those other areas. He has also shown — and

[ Page 3501 ]

he demonstrated this quite readily yesterday — that he is as good at Ottawa-bashing as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is, for instance. He lambasted the federal minister, Lloyd Axworthy, yesterday because the two of them can't get along and they can't get a program working. He's as good at Ottawa-bashing as the Premier is. So, in view of his background, it's been interesting to watch that sort of thing.

He has shown as late as today.... And I'm not satisfied with the explanation he gave with respect to the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner as opposed to a mediator, when one is requested and the others are not requested. I'm not satisfied with that answer. What we have, Mr. Chairman, is a situation where the employers in the particular brewery dispute which we were just referring to are going to lock out tomorrow. When it is the employers who are going to lock out and the brewery unions that are requesting an industrial inquiry officer, then the minister says no. He is quite prepared to go along with the employers' wishes in this case and neglect to accede to the request made by the brewery workers. That's another example of how well he fits in to what is the mould of Social Credit philosophy. He does it beautifully.

He indicated to us yesterday that he is not prepared to bring in regulations which would ensure that there are fair wages paid in that.... Do you remember that? The minister is smiling. He remembers. He knows that he is not prepared to make that particular act effective and that there will not be any establishment of a fair wage to be paid by government when they employ people to do construction on their behalf. He knows that. That's why he's likely to have problems again at places like Deer Lake — the Labour ministry offices there. He has indicated over and over again that he still does not understand or is not concerned enough about the problems that exist in terms of industrial health and safety in this province, or the problems that all of the MLAs face in trying to deal with the huge workload of compensation cases that each one of us gets.

I suppose it's just as well that the minister fits in and doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in that group that is currently the government of British Columbia.

Vote 146 approved.

Vote 147: ministerial administration and support services, $2,396,320 — approved.

Vote 148: apprenticeship training and employment opportunity programs, $37,087,884 — approved.

Vote 149: occupational environment, safety engineering and compensation advisory services, $8,204,840 — approved.

On vote 150: labour relations, collective bargaining and labour standards, $4,969,409.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question with respect to vote 150, which includes also the Essential Services Advisory Agency. The minister made some reference to that group yesterday and I have a couple of questions that I would like the minister to respond to with respect to the comments that he made yesterday. He said that the advisory group is going to become involved in industrial education. In other words, the whole question of collective bargaining and everything, I assume, is what he was referring to.

The other thing he mentioned was that this particular advisory group was going to be involved in industrial health and safety research as well, as I understand it. What I would like to know, in view of the fact that on the vote for this particular section.... The estimates for the Essential Services Advisory Agency for 1979-80 are $297,000 and for 1980-81 are $197,000. It is going to do all these new things and yet it has a $100,000 cut in its budget. I wonder if the minister could tell me what on earth that advisory agency has been doing up to this point. As I understand it, they have an office in Vancouver and are doing very, very little with their time. Could you please explain how this advisory agency is going to take over all those obligations on $100,000 less?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I appreciate the reduction. Obviously we haven't required the agency to the same degree as in former years. Perhaps that is a good sign. I think perhaps what it really reflected is that in the area of what are conveniently called essential services and with a pretty healthy collective-bargaining climate many matters have been resolved at the table. This is not etched in stone at all butI , like you, expressed some concern as to whether or not we were getting maximum advantage out of that particular agency. It had fulfilled a function, but the premises are there and there are some learned people involved with it. It came about rather innocently when we were talking about expanding concern in industrial education that perhaps the facilities could be used for a better purpose as an institute for people in the trades and in management, who could have available to them a good library for industrial relations, collective agreements, precedence, the bundle.

In addition to that we also had a genuine concern about occupational health and safety. We thought it might be a good place to use those facilities and beef them up — maybe not within the next few months; this may take 12 to 14 months to set up. We can have some place for people who are concerned and have a particular interest in the area of occupational health and safety and industrial hygiene and there could be a fair amount of communication and probably a receptacle for a great deal of data and perhaps some liaison with the WCB. I think that is what is going to come to pass. I hope it really works, because if it works the way I and my ministry want it to work, then I am going to be looking for more money in there next year — probably considerably more. I think it is a good vehicle and I hope we are going to call it the Institute of Industrial Relations and Occupational Health and Safety. There is going to be a great deal of input coming in from everybody in it. It's got a start. It's seed money.

MS. SANFORD: I am confused by this. It obviously means, then, that this Essential Services Advisory Agency is going to be done away with. If it isn't, then the Essential Services Advisory Agency is the wrong vehicle entirely to be doing the kinds of thin s this minister is so optimistic about accomplishing. Either you do away with this Essential Services Advisory Agency and set up a special college or whatever else he wants to call it.... Please do not have the Essential Services Advisory Agency undertake all these other functions. I think it is a bad move on the part of the minister.

[ Page 3502 ]

Vote 150 approved.

Vote 151: human rights programs, $913,023 — approved.

Vote 152: boards of review (Workers' Compensation Act), $10 — approved.

On vote 153: building occupancy charges, $2,143,000.

MS. SANFORD: I have a very brief question. What accounts for that $1 million increase in the building occupancy charges?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm advised that the reason for that was that the safety engineering services division within the ministry was formerly within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It involved the transfer of their premises, and presumably their premises throughout the province, over to the Ministry of Labour.

Vote 153 approved.

Vote 154: computer and consulting charges, $993,800 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 75: minister's office, $152,422.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This is my first opportunity to speak in estimates on the Ministry of Environment and I must say it's a pleasure, because I don't think there's a possibility of a ministry that has quite so many challenges in such a variety of ways as the Ministry of Environment. I must say I do enjoy this ministry; I find it absolutely fascinating. There's a staff of about 1,600 people — probably the highest percentage of professionals of any ministry in government, by virtue of the engineers, biologists and other very technical people who work in the ministry. By and large we're a service ministry to other ministries and other areas of government, as well as the general public. The ministry is broken down into five segments. Of those segments the first one we have is an assessment planning branch, which does just about what it says: project pre-assessment for environmental concerns and environmental damage, anything from power dams to linear developments such as pipelines or hydro rights-of-way. We have a terrestrial division which deals with information on land.

At this time my deputy has arrived. Previous ministers have always had to indicate that they needed a simultaneous translator to get from Gaelic to English, but having come from a Scottish background I can advise you I have no difficulty. I'm sure members of the House all know Mr. Marr.

The terrestrial division of the assessment planning branch of the ministry has under its authority the soils laboratory in Kelowna. They have been involved in doing the Canada Land Inventory map series for the entire province. They do all the land assessment information that's required by the ministry and for other ministries as well. The aquatic section of the assessment planning branch deals with, as it says, aquatic areas, such as lakes. The main project it's dealing with right now involves the Squamish estuary. Again, they are a group of professionals in the ministry that take a microscopic look at fairly large areas in terms of their environmental problems. There's also an air development section in assessment planning which deals with airshed management and air quality. There are a number of airsheds in the province which have particular environmental problems which they monitor on a daily basis. They deal with meteorologists and climatologists and do temperature and air mass studies throughout the province.

In the environmental management division of the ministry, which primarily deals with licensing, there's Fish and Wildlife, which probably has the highest profile, other than Waste Management, of any part of the ministry. We deal with hatcheries, trapping, trapper education and hunters through the CORE program — the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education Program. We stock in this province, through our hatchery system, just over 500 lakes. There are about another 1,000 lakes which are accessible to anglers. Given more funds for the hatchery program, we could stock them. I've said before in this House that many anglers go out with their fly rods and fish boats to some remote lake. They think they're going back to nature, and in all probability the Kamloops trout or the rainbow they took out was put in there by the ministry staff a few months or maybe as much as six months earlier.

Recently at the B.C. Wildlife Federation convention I was able to announce a conservation trust, which is $1.25 million in its first year, to go to collection and saving of specific areas of high environmental concern. Things that were pioneered by people like Roderick Haig-Brown in the private sector are now being done by the government sector. We also work with the National Second Century Fund and General Hoffmyster, who is the federal government's representative on the National Second Century Fund. As recently as a week ago Friday the Silver Creek project at Hope was turned over to the ministry by the National Second Century Fund. The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) represented me at that particular turnover. He forgot to take the dollar that he was supposed to take for the 99-year lease, but I'm assured by the General that if the member would for-ward the dollar we'll be able to get the lease finally secured.

There is a marine resources branch in the ministry which from an economic viewpoint is probably the most exciting prospect that I have to deal with. As members will know, previous ministers in this portfolio have had a lot to do with oyster enhancement, and in trying to increase the oyster production. It is our aim to double it in the next two years and increase it by a factor of ten within the next five years.

The market for oysters from British Columbia is unclassified, because we just aren't able to supply the demands we have now. Further advertising at this point only encourages people to inquire about supply, and we can't meet the demand we have. So we're going to a very intensive program of oyster management.

The marine resources branch, through their oyster seed development fund and through the technical things they are able to add to the people in the industry, have been instrumental in helping the industry go to the more modern methods of oyster production — that is, string culture and tray culture, largely for the half-shell trade. I was in Pendrell Sound last Sunday to see the oyster seed operation, and they had 155,000 strings of oyster shells ready to go in the water. They've gone in this week to pick up the sprat fall. Pendrell

[ Page 3503 ]

Sound and Houghton Channel can supply the entire world requirements for oyster seed. The potential is there; we only need to find people with the small amount of capital and the large amount of work required to go into increased oyster production.

In addition to that, the ministry is starting an oyster-shell development scheme in Baynes Sound, which is the primary area where oyster development in the province takes place.

In addition to that we are involved in the seaweed program. There are essentially three different types of seaweed. I do have the Latin names, but members of this House will probably appreciate it if I just refer to the common names. The one with the greatest potential is for the food market for the Japanese, and that is through the kombu plant. At the Bamfield Marine Station, the ministry's marine resources branch, in conjunction with the University of Victoria, is doing experimental work in trying to culture and grow cultured kombu on the west coast. The results are very promising. I think that there is a good possibility for it. It would be a cottage industry type of operation. It is an agricultural operation rather than a fishing operation, because it involves caring for plants and proper tending of fields.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Sorry, hon. member, I have to wait for your question a little later. I'm sure you'll give it to me.

There are also a number of other different types of seaweed. We are currently in a harvesting program up at Malcolm Island to determine the regeneration capability of the various types of seaweed which we have.

There has been interest expressed from other parts of the world about buying our seaweed, but the concern I have, which is obviously shared by staff in the ministry, is that if we allow wide-ranging harvesting of seaweed without consideration to the other plant organisms that live in that particular area, then we might literally cut down the trees....

We can't replant it like we can a forest. So we're doing tests now to see what the regeneration capability is. The results are very promising, because as it turns out, in our initial tests anyway, the areas where we've harvested get better production after we've harvested them than the areas with a natural basis. The regeneration capability is fairly substantial.

We also do research into geoducks, mussels, clams and the other shellfish that are the responsibility of the marine resources branch.

The waste management branch is, I guess, the one I get questioned on in the House most often, and the one which probably most members are most familiar with. We are involved in the licensing of all municipal and industrial sewage and waste disposal systems.

We have two interesting programs in the waste management branch. One is salvage assembly and collection of materials, called Project SAM, which collects derelict cars throughout the province. It crushes them and ships them to Vancouver where they are processed and recycled into flats, channel iron and reinforcing steel. So on the weekend when you are pouring some concrete and working with a piece of reinforcing steel, it probably is a three- or four-year-old Ford or Buick that has been crushed and recycled and has found a final home in a reinforcing rod.

We are also involved in the recycling of waste paper. Part of the strange anomaly in this province, with all our pulp and paper mills, is that we import between $3 million and $4 million worth of waste paper every year to make up our shortfall in recycling projects. To that end I'm pleased to say that government offices have recently agreed to go onto a paper-saving program which recycles high-quality waste paper, It's been working in my ministry for some time, and we expect it to become province-wide over the next two to three months, within the government service in any event.

The waste management branch also deals with a lot of the very difficult problems that members bring up from time to time on effluent discharge, on the quality of effluent, the minimum standards which we have to set. I have to give these people credit; they work under very strenuous situations, because no one really particularly wants to deal with waste management, although it's probably the area that I've paid most attention to, especially as it pertains to the lower Fraser River with our particular project that we had on the Fraser River task force, which brings the point right back to the waste management branch.

In terms of recycling, tomorrow in Victoria we start a blitz on our campaign for oil-recycling depots in Victoria. The automotive industry have now agreed that recycled oil is every bit as good as new oil, and for those people who change their own oil and want to find a place to deposit it, we're going to do it in Victoria. If it's successful there, we'll expand it in other areas of the province.

The water management division deals with the 1,600 dams that exist in this province — more or less 1,600; we build a few every year and some come down — but there is also a dam safety inspection program. There are a substantial number of dams in this province that were built in the last century which require inspection, as do modern dams. I must admit that when I first came to the ministry I was aghast at the number that did exist, but there are a number of professionals in the ministry who just look after that particular area; they also look after the water rights end of it.

We have a pesticides division in environmental management which looks after both pesticides and herbicides. They license applicators — that is, commercial applicators — and they also instruct and license people who are permitted to sell pesticides. We, of course, have a board of appeal for pesticides which people want to appeal against. That's another area where, obviously. there is a large amount of concern by people throughout the province. These people are to be complimented. They go to farm supply businesses, to drugstores and to a number of areas where pesticides are made available and instruct the vendors to ask the right questions and to ensure that the ultimate client at least reads the directions and takes every safety precaution available. I believe, and the ministry believes, that if properly applied and properly used, pesticides that are licensed by Agriculture Canada are valuable both to the agricultural industry and the forestry industry as well as for general household use.

There is an environmental services branch in the ministry, and, as it says. It deals with environmental services. We have an inventory engineering division which deals with dikes and flood prevention and flood-plain mapping. We are currently in a program of Fraser River flood control and are trying to make sure that all of the dikes on the Fraser system, which doesn't just include from Hope to the sea but the whole system, are improved. Some members will recall the flooding in 1947. If you go back in history the dikes in British Columbia were never done with riprap and proper quality aggregate. Essentially they started off by the local farmer

[ Page 3504 ]

putting on surplus manure and some surplus topsoil to stop the water, and that's the basis and the foundation for many of the dikes in the province.

When we do test-holes we find that the weakest point is sometimes the foundation of our diking system, and in cooperation with the federal government we have a very extensive program of trying to improve the dikes — I must admit it is becoming very, very expensive to get the kind of protection that we would like to have throughout the province. It's not something that's in the front of our minds until we have some kind of a high-water problem and everybody begins to worry about the quality of the dikes. We have a dike inspector based in Surrey who travels throughout the Lower Fraser Valley and further up in the province, and is very diligent. I'm often approached by mayors or aldermen or city managers who say: "Your dike inspector is being far too fussy." Generally speaking, by the time we've had our little chat they agree that maybe it is really important that even in July and August we worry about our diking system. In the last two years there has been such a low fresh that we haven't had a serious problem with dikes, but we're going to continue to work on it.

Also in the inventory engineering we deal with that perennial weed that we seem to have in this province called Eurasian water milfoil. This year in the Okanagan we have what is essentially a cosmetic program of harvesting the weeds on the swimming beaches in cooperation with the Okanagan basin water board, but the eradication programs are only in very limited areas. The one area we were considering on the Woods Lake.... Due to late warming in the spring we had not entered on the program this year that we were going to do.

We also have the health engineering branch in inventory and engineering which licenses public swimming pools. Occasionally someone wants to move the location of a diving board and it comes across my desk. I must admit it's not a particularly high-profile item and I wonder if my critic even knew that we had that in there.

We also deal a lot with drainage and irrigation programs as they pertain to the lowlands in the province.

As regards the surveys and mapping division, all members of the House were circulated a catalogue by me some months ago which shows the products we make there. They're very proud of their operation — it's just behind the buildings here — and they tell me it's never been more than 20 minutes from the time they have a request from a member of the House before they have the appropriate map or photograph on their desk. If members have any spare time and are interested, it's a fascinating operation, to go and see how they do their base mapping.

They are in a program of aerial photography. One would hope that some day the province will be totally photographed, but they have a backlog of some eight years now on requests. It requires certain days; only certain weather conditions are appropriate for aerial photography. It requires fairly high altitude work. They have a very sophisticated level of production, in both colour and black-and-white photographs. The information is transferred to Forests and to other ministries that request this service. We also do all the computerized base-mapping — Forests, Lands, Parks and other ministries take over our base maps and transfer them.

Also involved is the place-names committee, where I have the opportunity of putting names on lakes, streams or creeks that haven't been named. None have been named after me. In fact, I think we have only had one name change since I have been involved with the ministry.

In the surveys and mapping branch we have quite an active retail sales program, so that through government agents and government offices around the province people are able to go in and select a map or photograph. They are not always in stock but they get them very quickly. It's a good program.

Out at the University of British Columbia next to the B.C. Research centre is the environmental lab, run by Charlie Lynch. That is the area where we do test all the pollutants — air, water, pesticides and mystery substances which come in and we have to analyze. It is a very professional group of people that work there. They do water testing for people who submit water samples. In fact, for those who don't know, for a $5 fee they will do a complete analysis of anyone's domestic water supply. It costs us considerably more than that to do it, but it is a worthwhile program, because we want the people who have remote water sources to be able to know exactly what is in their water systems. Once again, if members are out at the university and want to see a really fascinating area of this ministry, I would advise them to pop in and see it; it is very worthwhile.

The Provincial Emergency Program deals largely with disasters. It is an offshoot of civil defence from a long time ago. They have about 8,000 volunteers who work on a regular basis, involved in marine rescue, downed aircraft, vessels out of gas, vessels that are broken down, people who are stranded on mountains and children who are lost — and adults who are lost, for that matter. They work every weekend. They are busier in the summer than in the winter, but they are busy all year long. We give them a certain amount of assistance. In the event of major disasters, they are the coordinating agency. They have excellent communication with all of the volunteer agencies and the Red Cross.

They also deal with our coordination with the Department of National Defence in the event of an emergency. I had a meeting with Rear-Admiral Martin just the other day. He has subsequently announced his retirement — I'm sure it had nothing to do with our meeting — so I will have another one with his replacement. It is that end of the ministry which deals with the federal government in terms of major emergencies of an environmental nature. In addition to that, the reserve RCMP are, from an administrative point of view, responsible through the Provincial Emergency Program, and therefore through me, to the province.

We maintain a number of regional offices in various areas of the province. Part of our reorganization has been that our administrative functions stay in Victoria but the regional functions can be decentralized as much as possible. This program is ongoing at the present time, so they are not all located in offices. Perhaps the best example is Prince George, where they are all on two floors of the same building so that all of the people from all aspects of the ministry are together. We have offices in Nanaimo, Surrey, Penticton, Nelson, Kamloops and Smithers, as well as Prince George, and about 100 other smaller offices in various smaller communities with one or two fish and wildlife people or one or two conservation officers. So we have public acceptance of locations throughout the province.

Conservation officers are part of the responsibility of the regional offices. In my Fraser River Task Force it is the conservation officers who have gone from game wardens in the past to almost being environmental policemen. In their spare time a lot of them run the CORE program for us. These people have been absolutely fantastic in terms of assisting Fish and Wildlife, but also in our recent crackdowns on

[ Page 3505 ]

violators and polluters on the Fraser River. Their background in police work has been invaluable because of the difficulties in enforcing laws. When one takes evidence that one has gathered to the regional Crown counsel it is important that it be handled professionally. I compliment them, as I have privately.

Through our public information services we currently have an environmental mall show travelling throughout the lower mainland this year. Next year it will go into the interior of the province. It has been well received by the public and is very popular. This year it features a deer fawn that was picked up by a well-meaning person. We really want to try to encourage people to leave animals in the wild no matter how tame they may appear to be. The mother is usually in sight and not far away.

We've had an excellent public response from local areas. In fact, I was in Abbotsford about ten days ago and visited the show. Public awareness.... We involve everything that the ministry does, from Fish and Wildlife right through to.... We even have a crushed car sitting in the middle of the lobby of the shopping centre, showing what we do with it,

In addition to that my responsibilities include being chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee; therefore I'm responsible to the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and the work that it does in coordinating programs between government agencies in terms of environmental considerations.

With that I think I will defer to my friend the critic.

MR. SKELLY: It's a pleasure to take my place here during the Environment estimates. First of all I'd like to thank the minister for his opening comments. Although these are his first estimates as Minister of Environment, I've been through this a number of times before, and every time the opening comments seem the same. In this case it seems that the minister has gone around the department like a ramp-rat goes around a 747. He kicks the wheels, pulls the ailerons and looks in the engines. We can tell everything about this machine but how it flies, why it flies and where it's going to. He told us all about the details of the machinery, but he didn't give any idea as to what the direction of this machinery is — where it's taking us in the province. The one thing we always want to know on this side is what the policy of the department is and what the minister is going to do.

It's interesting that ministers often get sucked into this kind of ministerial navel-gazing. They start looking at the department and getting concerned about what the department does, how many professionals there are in the department, how many buildings and square feet of office space and hours of computer time they have, and they forget that the things that really count are the resources they are supposed to be dealing with. And that is those common-property, life-sustaining resources — the water, air, fish and wildlife and productive land of the province.

I would caution the minister that if his opening remarks are any indication of his appreciation of environment in the province of British Columbia, then this opposition and the citizens of the province are going to tell him something different, because their appreciation is something totally different from that expressed by the minister.

I'm reminded of an analogy that was given by a regional district director from the west coast. There are a lot of cantankerous old soldiers out there on the west coast, and when they're describing a speech like the one made by the minister.... In fact, he was describing a speech made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) down in Nanaimo when he was talking about the apocryphal county system. He said: "Well, it was one of those kind of speeches that was like a Texas longhorn steer. There was a point here and a point here and lot of bull in between."

So it seems that the minister's speech just didn't contain a heck of a lot, Mr. Chairman — a point here and a point there, but a lot of bull in between. There wasn't really too much to that speech. We were hoping for something else. We were hoping that the minister could stand up because of the concern of the people in this province and this country about the environment. We weren't hoping that the minister would stand up and give us some indication as to what his department looked like and how many people he had working for him, or give us the Cook's tour that we've had eight or ten times before in this House; we were hoping that he would tell us where he's going, what he's doing and what his concern is for the environment in this province. That's the challenge we threw out to that minister. That's the challenge that was given to him when he was appointed Minister of Environment. This minister, as far as I can perceive from his introductory comments, certainly hasn't responded in any way to that challenge that we can support in this House.

Generally a minister is given a short period of grace during which the public and the opposition size him up and find out how he performs in the new role assigned to him and how the press sizes him up. This minister is one who hasn't sized up very well, Mr. Chairman. The people don't really think that this minister is that concerned about his job as Environment minister. They don't see any new developments taking place that would change the direction of environmental management and concern about the environment on the part of this government throughout this province.

Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman: if you were a citizen of the province observing all those things around you in the environment, all those problems and conflicts in environmental management, all those problems with weak administration, what would you conclude about that minister?

Let me give you another example. Announcements are coming out in the newspapers that all the beaches in Victoria are polluted with human feces or fecal coliforms to the point where they cannot safely be used for water recreation. What would you conclude about the minister and the concern and activities of his government in the field of environmental management? What conclusions would you draw?

You read reports in the paper that mine tailings are affecting the water supply of Campbell River and the water quality in Buttle Lake. You read reports in the newspaper that tailings from Utah Mines have destroyed the sea life on the bottom of Rupert Inlet. You read in the paper that plans are underway to approve another dumping of mine tailings in Alice Arm, a fisheries area on the north coast of British Columbia. The minister doesn't seem to be all that concerned. Most of the concern being expressed is on the part of the federal government and the New Democratic Party opposition. The minister and this government don't seem to be all that concerned about what is going to happen to sea life in Alice Arm or Buttle Lake or Rupert Inlet. What about the water quality in those areas? What would you conclude about this minister and this government?

When you see that the Environment and Land Use Com-

[ Page 3506 ]

mittee secretariat is being emasculated, when all the studies they do are being kept secret, when environmental problems and conflicts are debated, not in the public forum where they should be debated with full public disclosure of the problems, but in a cabinet committee that makes its decisions in secret, when there is no adequate opportunity for public input to environmental decisions, no full, formal procedure for environmental impact statements and environmental analysis and review procedures, none of those things that are built into legislation in our neighbouring provinces and in most the provinces in Canada and most of the states in the United States, when you see we have a lack of the rule of law in environment, then what can you conclude about the activities of that minister and that government? What can you conclude about their concern for the environment?

The minister extols the virtues of the fish and wildlife branch and talks about their activities but he doesn't increase their budget so they can function a lot better than they presently do. They get a pittance in the form of an increase in their budget. When you see this fish and wildlife branch has virtually no control whatsoever over the habitat of the resources they are supposed to administer and that when Fish and Wildlife makes representations to the senior ministries — the ones that really count, that have the big word in this cabinet: the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — their word is rejected, what can you conclude about the strength of this minister and his ability to defend his ministry when it comes to resource conflicts debated in cabinet?

When major developments are announced — northeast coal or the first phase of the Al-Can pipeline — that have significant social, environmental and economic impacts on certain parts of the province and yet there is virtually nothing coming out of this minister, no demand for public hearings, no demand for environmental impact assessment and review procedures, what can you conclude about the minister's concern for the environment and the impact of those major projects throughout the province?

You see what happened, for example, at Riley Creek in the Queen Charlotte Islands when, knowing in advance that there were serious slope and soil stability problems, the Ministry of Forests approved a cutting permit in that area, knowing that there would be tremendous impacts on the habitat of an important fishery. The minister didn't see fit to, or he couldn't, defend his resource. The Forests minister made the decision in spite of any representations that came from people responsible for the fisheries resource. In fact, the only people who did anything about it were the federal Fisheries people, and they didn't receive the backing of the provincial government, this provincial minister or the federal minister.

What can you conclude about this government's environmental policies or its Minister of Environment? I think the only conclusion you can draw about the minister and about the environmental attitudes of this government is that they have a lack of interest in environment and in the environment of this province. In fact, they even express a hostility towards environmental concerns. In fact, the minister seldom comments on environmental problems and conflicts. Seldom do they demand compliance from the government or from private organizations which continually ignore his legislation. There is very little enforcement of the legislation that this minister is responsible for. Almost anyone can violate the legislation with impunity. It's only when concerned organizations and concerned groups like SPEC draw his attention to the serious problems of pollution in the Fraser River estuary that the minister is goaded to act and to enforce the pollution control legislation.

For example, when the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) stood up in the House and asked the Minister of Environment if he would set up a task force to look into the problems of the Victoria area beaches, similar to the task force operating in the area of the Fraser River estuary, according to the newspapers the minister seemed uninterested, lacked interest, wasn't too enthusiastic about it. What kind of a minister is that? What kind of an attitude towards environment is that? Is this the minister who wants the people of Victoria to swim in beaches polluted by human fecal coliform? Is the conclusion that we can draw about this minister, Mr. Chairman, that he doesn't really care that the beaches in this area are polluted?

This is the minister who ignores the advice and the wishes and the representations made to him by the citizens of British Columbia. To me, his introductory comments indicate that one of the problems in this ministry is that the person who occupies the position of minister has become more concerned about the internal functions of his ministry than he is about the environment of the province of British Columbia, or about the serious problems that face the environment and the serious conflicts in the environment in the province of British Columbia. That is what concerns the official opposition. That is the tenor of the letters that cross our desks hundreds of times a day — which we communicate to the Minister of Environment. Ninety percent of the time the response is a form letter which says: "The minister has your letter, and he's going to respond at some time in the future."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In cabinet this minister seems powerless to do what he is authorized to do under his legislation. He seems to have no power to tell the Premier that the environment should be a top-priority item, and that the citizens believe it to be a top-priority item. All over Canada and the United States polls have asked the citizens of those countries: "What do you feel is the most important problem facing Canada and the United States today?" Inevitably, 70 percent or more of the citizens of this country and of the country south of us are saying that environmental problems are the ones we have to deal with on a first-priority basis.

A lot of the old problems of the thirties and forties have already been resolved. We talk about health and medicare; most people in North America are now covered by medical plans of one type or another. The great battle of the sixties has now been resolved for most people. The real concern that many people have right now — in fact, a vast majority of people — is that which should be the concern of the Minister of Environment. It's the quality of those common-property, life-sustaining resources on which we all depend for our life, health and safety — clean air, pure water, productive land. They should be your first concern. You should be the advocate in cabinet for the protection of those resources.

I know it's attractive to look at the marine resources branch and to see that they can grow oysters faster than anybody else can, and that there's possibly a market in Japan or locally, to see how fast they can grow seaweed, and what types they can grow and sell in Japan. That gets you into the marketing arena; I know that's the kind of thing you like, Mr. Minister.

The important thing which should be the area of your

[ Page 3507 ]

primary concern is the quality of the environment in this province. As far as I can see there's not a single person in the Social Credit benches today — and I can't recall a time when there was — who is concerned about the quality of, again, those common-property, life-sustaining resources: the pure water, pure air and productive land of this province. I think it was unfortunate when the Premier of the province, a few switches or rotations ago, broke off the responsibility for Crown lands from the Ministry of Environment and put it into what is essentially a patronage ministry in order to get rid of those lands, sell them out and alienate them from public control. I think it was a tremendous mistake, because we should be concerned about the quality and preservation of that productive land. It's the basis upon which our children will require to survive. Those are the resources that this minister should be primarily concerned about.

I'd just like to go into one of the issues that's been discussed in the newspapers recently as a result of a court decision in the United States. It relates to the Skagit Valley. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to recite the history of the Skagit Valley and what's happened there — the desire of the city of Seattle to build onto the High Ross Dam at Ross Lake in the state of Washington. When they built the dam initially, Seattle City Light allowed the reservoir from that dam to cross the border into Canada and trespass on Canadian territory in the Skagit Valley. That trespass remained for years and years and discussion took place over the trespass for many years. Their representative, I believe, was Farris, a lawyer in Vancouver. Farris, I believe, was the representative for Seattle City Light. The Americans, through their representative, were constantly making representations to the first Social Credit government to accept compensation for that initial trespass that resulted from the construction of the Ross Dam in the first place. It wasn't until 1954 that a Social Credit minister actually took money in compensation from the Americans for the initial trespass committed by Seattle City Light through the construction of Ross Dam. We all know who that minister was; it was Robert Sommers. He took $5,000 a year from 1954 up until about 1966, although I think for some part of those years he was not in this House but possibly in another one. He was succeeded as Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources by one Ray Williston. Contrary to the advice of other members of his government, he decided to allow Seattle City Light to flood a larger part of the Skagit Valley in e-change for $34,566 a year, about $6 an acre. Now out of that acreage which would be flooded by Seattle City Light, Seattle would be able to generate an amount of hydroelectricity equal in 1967 dollars to about $3.3 million. Well, it was not a bad deal for the Americans to get $3.3 million worth of power for 99 years for a Tent of $34,000 a year.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That's the bottom line.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unindexed.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, that power is worth a heck of a lot more right now; it's worth billions of dollars now, at the rate of $34,000 a year, which is what Williston sold out the Skagit Valley for.

AN HON. MEMBER: What government?

MR. SKELLY: That was under the Social Credit government. I'm wondering if this government is still receiving rent for the Skagit Valley at the rate of $34,566 a year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must bring to the member's attention what can and cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. We may only discuss the actions for which the present minister is responsible. The member is now thoroughly canvassing material beyond the scope of the debate that is allowed in committee.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, this minister is responsible for negotiations with Seattle City Light over the Skagit Valley problem. He's also responsible for water resources which the Americans would like to run through the Ross Dam to create billions of dollars worth of power for the Americans in exchange for $34,000 a year for us. It’s a Social Credit deal that was entered into by Ray Williston and Robert Sommers, and I'm just wondering what the minister is doing on our behalf to get out of such a stupid deal.

Over the past few years, Mr. Chairman, a number of Environment ministers have been discussing with Seattle City Light compensation in order for Seattle City Light to give up its agreement to flood the Skagit Valley. Seattle City Light is now asking Canada to pay compensation to get out of this stupid deal made by Ray Williston. There are a number of options that are open to the British Columbia government if you're looking at this type of compromise.

We could give them the power that's available, or the water that's available to us at the Libby Dam in 1984. That would eliminate the possibility of building the Kootenay diversion, which is something like 810 million kilowatt-hours per year of energy. Hydro says that we're really short of energy in this province and that we have to build more generating facilities. But one of the ways out of this Seattle City Light fiasco, that was perpetrated on us by Ray Williston and Robert Sommers, is to compensate the city of Seattle by giving them the water to which we're entitled at Libby in 1984 and thereby eliminating the Kootenay diversion — 810 million kilowatt-hours per year. Now that's one choice we have. But Hydro says we really need the power, so it means that somewhere farther down the line we're going to have to dam some other sensitive valley elsewhere in order to make up our own power needs, because of this stupid decision on the part of a previous Social Credit government, and its minister, Ray Williston, who's still an employee of the present Social Credit government, and who is getting us into even more difficult problems with the Los Angeles Times after his shutdown of Ocean Falls.

Now one thing that B.C. citizens could do is provide the city of Seattle, out of our B.C. Hydro generating system, with the amount of hydroelectricity that they would have received from the construction of the High Ross Dam. There was an article on page 5 of the Vancouver Sun, some years ago, which said that the power over the 99-year lifespan of the dam would be worth something like S4 billion, compared to the price of oil at that time. The energy equivalent of oil at that time was $4 billion worth of power we would have to turn over to the United States in e, .change for rental on the Skagit Valley of $34,000 per year for 99 years. In other words, over a 100-year period we would get $3.4 million

[ Page 3508 ]

from the Americans, and in ex change for that we would give them $4 billion worth of power. It sounds like a typical Social Credit deal, a typical Ray Williston fiasco.

Some of the newspapers in the province are saying that now is the time — when the Americans have won the court case they just completed in the United States — when we should compromise with the city of Seattle so that we can keep the Skagit Valley. What are the terms of that compromise going to be? Are we going to give them our right to the power at Libby? Are we going to give them $4 billion worth of energy in compensation, energy that we dearly need? What are going to be the terms of the settlement with the city of Seattle?

If the people of the province had an opportunity to look at this deal and to instruct the minister, even though those negotiations are being carried on in secret and have been carried on in secret since 1977, they would tell the minister to adopt a hard-line approach with the city of Seattle. It was a rotten Social Credit deal that we got involved with in the first place. Get us out of it! We don't owe any compensation to Seattle. They trespassed in the first place. They entered into a stupid deal with Ray Williston. The terms should be abrogated and Seattle should look elsewhere for their power. Adopt a hard-line approach. Every time a Socred goes down to the United States to negotiate, even with a city — the city of Seattle — the citizens of British Columbia end up getting hosed. They are giving us $3.4 million over 100 years and we're giving them $4 billion worth of hydroelectric power? Forget it. That is nonsense. That is robbery and Ray Williston is responsible for that stupid agreement. He should be fired right away for his past sins.

There is one thing this minister should know. This Legislature does not want the minister to go down to Seattle and compensate them for our territory that was stupidly given away by Ray Williston. I would like to know what the minister has been doing about the Skagit Valley. This Legislature, if it does one thing this session, should resolve on this fact: that we don't want to give them a nickel; that we don't owe them any power; that we want to keep that valley intact; and that we don't want to sacrifice any further rivers or generation projects up-country in order to compensate the city of Seattle for that foolish agreement that was entered into by Ray Williston and Robert Sommers years before our time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note that my time has expired, so I'll await the minister's response.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think you described me as a Texas longhorn steer, and you said there's nothing between the points but bull. Perhaps your agricultural critic could ex, plain that by the time they become a steer they have ceased to be a bull. By the very nature of the fact that you call me a longhorn steer, I .... The animal can't.... Anyway, that's an agricultural problem. Fortunately I don't have to address that.

MR. COCKE: Try to make it fit as best as you can.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, it's unfortunate the member for New Westminster wasn't in the House earlier; he would have appreciated why I made that remark.

However, it was less than two weeks after I was the minister that I started the Fraser River Task Force, and we've laid a substantial number of charges against people who are polluting.

One of the things you must remember is that in environmental terms that is the worst problem in the province. Air, land and water — that's the number one problem, and I went after the number one problem first with what I think are the best people we could get for the job.

The water quality in Buttle Lake. Yes, I'm very concerned about that. We have some very conflicting evidence on Buttle Lake. The company challenges the findings that the ministry has. I'm prepared to see what they have and have it looked at by somebody else. There are very finite technical details. It only indicates in the preamble of that report that there is an indication that there may be a problem coming down the line. One of the problems in Buttle Lake that's very real is that it's a high mineralization zone, and it could quite possibly be that many of the trace metals found in the water are the result of natural erosion and not of mining. I suspect that it's mining, but I'm prepared to at least look at the evidence of both sides.

You say ELUC does all its work in secret. We've issued the Nanaimo estuary study, and the Howe Sound study, and the Cowichan Valley study is to be released soon. Yes, the committee meets in secret or in private, rather like cabinet does, because we deal with a wide variety of things. It's a committee of cabinet, but the results are issued. They're made public.

You say the budget of Fish and Wildlife hasn't done very much. In 1972 we started off with $2.7 million and we're at $13.5 now in Fish and Wildlife. In 1973, $2.9 million; 1974, $4.1 million; 1975, $7 million; 1976, $10 million; 1977, $12 million; and in 1978, $12 million. So there has been an increase. That has included our share of the salmonid enhancement program from 1976 on, but there has been a fairly substantial increase. I know the people in Fish and Wildlife could always use more money because there are so many projects we can do.

You said we don't indicate any concern about matters for public hearing, but we have established environmental assessments for linear guidelines, for coal guidelines and for any other type of development. Those things are in place. I don't know that I necessarily have to stand up on a soapbox and scream my head off when we order a study done on any kind of a proposal. We certainly have turned a few of them down.

I went to Riley Creek on the Queen Charlotte Islands with the Minister of Forests (Hon Mr. Waterland). I am convinced the fish won, I think he is probably convinced the fish won as well. We did identify fairly serious problems. Part of the problem is the wildlife problem with the deer on the Queen Charlotte Islands, because they are part of the erosion problem. There is no question that the logging took place on very steep slope operations, and I think they could have easily expected it. There is no question there has been some serious environmental damage done to Riley Creek. We will have to wait for the report of federal Fisheries this year to find out how much. It didn't happen in spawning season and spawning season is very short in that particular creek so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

You said we haven't been involved in enforcement. I'll tell you, regional Crown counsel has seen more work from the Ministry of Environment since I've been the minister than they have in an awfully long time.

You made reference to the fact that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) asked me to get a task force going in Victoria. The big reason for the difference in that is that in

[ Page 3509 ]

Victoria the sources of pollution are clearly identified. It is a question of whether the regional government wants to get involved — as they must be the lead agency to do it — in solving their problem which we, by the way, fund a great majority of, In Vancouver we didn't know what the sources of the pollution were as we do in Victoria. In Victoria it is clearly evident and we don't need to have some sleuths go out and find out where the problem comes from. Everybody knows where it is.

You say the one area I am interested in is seaweed marketing. I just happen to have spent a little time there. I think it is incumbent on the minister to try to spend a little time in all the various areas of the ministry. I can assure you they don't get a great deal of my attention, but when they have my attention they get as much of it as they can have.

Powerless in cabinet? Well, I won't tell you what goes on in cabinet. I will leave it to you to guess.

The Skagit Valley is the one you dwelt on the most. The Skagit Valley agreement was signed in 1942, before I was born and, I suspect, before you were born. At that time it was signed based on an emergency that was thought to have existed for electricity required for the production of aluminum for the war effort. At that time the International Joint Commission originally agreed to allow the building of the High Ross Dam, but it did not proceed, fortunately. They built the Low Ross Dam and there was some flooding into British Columbia. You're quite right; it is a trespass.

In 1947 the Skagit Valley Land Act went through this Legislature totally unopposed. In 1947 there was a coalition government.

No, we don't accept the money from the city of Seattle for the flooding. That was a question that you asked. The matter was referred by the federal government to the province of British Columbia to try to negotiate. We have looked at negotiating with Seattle, but I am not prepared to trade one environmental problem in the province for another. I'm not prepared to say that we are going to build a dam here to make up for the flooding we have there. I think we have taken a very hard line on the Skagit situation. We recently sent the matter to the people who sent it to us in the first place. We failed to come to an agreement with Seattle. We tried some very tough negotiating. I haven't been involved in it; that doesn't mean that I couldn't be involved, but just as a matter of policy I haven't been. Seattle feels pretty strong about A right now, having won the recent case in the United States. A power make-up from the British Columbia Hydro system just means that we cause an environmental problem somewhere else in this province. There's no question about it; over the life of the terms of the Skagit Valley agreement.... I don't know that your numbers are accurate, but it makes no difference, because the volume is about as substantial as you make it out to be.

There is some question about whether the IJC had a quorum in 1942 and whether the decision was even legal. I must admit we are probably scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for legal ways out of it, but we are going to challenge every one that we possibly can. It's my intention at this point — in fact I have already indicated to Seattle — that we will refer the matter back to the IJC. That may only be a delaying tactic, but I'm not sure about that. We had a meeting with the Canadian and American commissioners of the IJC not very long ago.

I don't think the word environment was even common in 1942 when this thing started. You made some points about Mr. Williston. Yes, in 1967 a further development did take place, but it starts a lot earlier than that. I think we have taken a hard line on it. I'm certainly not going to be the minister that allows them to flood the Skagit Valley as long as I have the power vested in me to stop them from doing so.

MR. SKELLY: I was particularly pleased to hear the minister's response on the Skagit Valley issue. I think if there's one single issue that the people of British Columbia — especially those who have access to the Skagit Valley area — would like to communicate to the minister, it is the need to develop a hard line on that issue. I'm pleased to see it; if he is following through with a hard line approach to Seattle, that's the way he should be going and I congratulate him for going in that direction. The city of Seattle has no right to the Skagit Valley, and no right to any power in compensation for trespass in the Skagit Valley. I would hope this Legislature would pass a resolution, similar to one that was passed in the House of Commons a few years back, expressing to the city of Seattle, the federal government, the state of Washington and the United States government that we do not want to part with that land. Nor do we want to put other valleys in the province in jeopardy for compensation that we are not really morally or legally required to pay.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

On the question of enforcement, there should be an emphasis on enforcement of your legislation. One of the problems of your ministry is that the legislation is totally inadequate. ~Ve've had promises in throne speeches since 1976; your government has promised time after time to come down with solid environmental legislation, and every single session nothing of any effect has appeared. Absolutely nothing has appeared.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The bill of rights.

MR. SKELLY: The bill of rights is another thing — and the abortive denticare program that just came down. All of those promises........ You get pieces of them occasionally, or election slogans out of throne speeches, but we don't really get anything concrete that citizens of this province can look to as a rule of law for the environment in this province. One of the things that's happening in other provinces is that instead of the Pollution Control Board, for example, laying charges against violators for effluent violations — or a case I've referred to the minister relating to a solid-waste disposal site up on the North Thompson River — there should be a provision in statute for the citizens — the people who are most concerned — to monitor the environment of the province and to lay charges. One thing happened up in the community of Elkford when that community was allowing a contractor to put in water pipes and they allowed the contractor to drive through the river.

MR. SEGARTY: Sparwood.

MR. SKELLY: Sparwood. The member speaks across the floor, but where was his voice at the time this was happening? Mr. Chairman, when does he ever stand up in the Legislature and complain about the degradation of the en-

[ Page 3510 ]

vironment in his area? Always you hear the comments across the floor, but does he ever have the guts to stand up for the people of Sparwood or Elkford or anywhere else, for that matter, to defend the interests of the environment in the East Kootenays? I've never heard it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on vote 75, the estimates of the minister, and we should discuss and debate the administrative actions of the minister. I might also remind all hon. members that Committee of Supply does not really afford us the opportunity of discussing legislation; those are our orders and we are bound by them.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I was talking about the enforcement of a statute on which concerned citizens in the area the member for Kootenay represents saw fit not to contact him or the representative of the day. They phoned all the way to Port Alberni to try to get some action on the violation of provincial statutes. They got no satisfaction from the minister or the ministry, so they phoned to Port Alberni. I contacted the Deputy Minister of Environment and, to his credit, he got the process going, so the situation was handled at that point.

One thing that a citizen should have the right to do in this province is to stand up for the environment, to have standing before the courts and to be able to lay charges against people who are degrading the environment. I challenge you to go through a single environmental statute in the province of British Columbia and show me where the citizen has the standing before the courts to go and to lay charges against people who are damaging his resources, because these are the life-sustaining resources that belong not simply to one person to degrade, but to all of us to protect. Yet the citizens of this province, under the present legislation, do not have the right to protect the resources which they own in common with all other citizens of the province and which they rely on as life-sustaining resources for their life, health and safety and that of their children. That's one thing. If this minister had the strength and the courage of his convictions, he should be bringing down legislation right away to give those citizens standing before the courts so that they can protect what is owned by them and their children.

Throne speech after throne speech we've been promised a comprehensive body of environmental legislation. It's right here in the throne speech...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have debated the throne speech. We are in estimates now.

MR. SKELLY: ...yet this session it hasn't come down. We would have expected it by now. We've been here since sometime in February.

HON. MR. FRASER: You didn't even have an Environment minister. What are you yacking about?

MR. SKELLY: You don't have one either! That's what I'm yapping about.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order. I will once again remind the hon. member for Alberni that our standing orders do not allow us to debate the necessity for legislation nor matters involving legislation in Committee of Supply. Could the member continue on vote 75.

MR. SKELLY: Without referring to the need for legislation, Mr. Chairman, I do emphasize to the minister — and would like his response — the need for the citizens to have the power to go before the courts and defend their interests and the interests of their children and grandchildren in the environment. In almost every other province the citizen has that right. Quebec recently passed that legislation. It's available to citizens in the republic to the south of us. We, as citizens in a free province in a free country, should have that right to protect the resources that belong to us. I would look forward to the minister's response to that suggestion.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member made some remarks about the Skagit Valley and you are quite correct. The federal House did have the unanimous vote of the House and we are going to remind them of that in matters dealing with the Skagit.

Environmental legislation. We are not allowed to discuss legislation, but it is coming. There is a whole program of it and I think you'll find it more than adequate. I have certainly spent a lot of time working on it. Citizens can lay charges now in certain matters. It is just a matter of swearing it before a magistrate. But you are quite correct that where there is.... My legal counsel is here to advise me of which ones you can and which ones you can't. Charges were laid in the Sparwood case under the Water Act. There are others that can. I think that is a perfectly good suggestion that we can certainly give consideration to. In almost every case it is a citizen that brings the matter forward to someone from the ministry and charges are laid, because we just don't have that many people. I'll tell you, the other day, driving from a Transpo meeting in Vancouver out to the airport, I saw somebody from the city of Vancouver pouring the oily waste from a paving crew down the manhole. I was going to write it down but the cab-driver reported it over his radio. He didn't know I was Minister of Environment and he reported it to his dispatcher. We are starting to get that kind of thing happening with a lot of people.

We took a note of it anyway and since I had a meeting with the mayor a little later on in the day I brought it up personally, so it didn't have to go the circuitous route. There is an awful lot of citizen participation right now. The mechanics of citizens reporting matters to ministry officials or regional Crown counsel I don't think is all that onerous but, as you say, there may be some room for having citizens involved directly in it.

MR. SKELLY: In view of the time, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's fifth report.

[ Page 3511 ]

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Legislative Committee room, July 24, 1980, Mr. Speaker. Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows, that the preamble to Bill PR 404 intituled An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported with amendment, all of which is respectfully submitted, W. B. Strachan, Chairman.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 pm.