[ Page 3677 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Fraser.

Introduction and first reading –– 3677

Family and Child Service Act (Bill 45). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading –– 3677

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980 (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3677

Motion 19.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3677

Mr. Barrett –– 3677

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates,

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 134: minister's office 3677

Mr. Lockstead, Mr. Davis, Ms. Brown, Mr. Segarty, Mr. Barber, Mr. Lea

Division on vote 134 –– 3688

Votes 135 to 140 inclusive approved –– 3689

Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act (Bill 38). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Williams)

On section 25 –– 3689

Mr. Levi

On the amendment to section 25 –– 3689

Mr. Barber, Hon. Mr. Gardom

On section 25 as amended –– 3690

Mr. Barber, Mr. Levi

On section 26 –– 3691

Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Levi

Report and third reading –– 3692

Business Licence Act (Bill 42). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 1 I –– 3692

Mr. Mitchell

Report and third reading –– 3693

Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 41). Committee Stage.

On section 9 –– 3693

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Report and third reading –– 3693

Appendix –– 3693

FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family and Child Service Act.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980.

Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move Motion 19 standing on my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this motion has the purpose of extending the congratulations and best wishes of this House and the people of British Columbia to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, on the occasion of her birthday this coming Monday.

I might just make a few brief comments relative to the motion. Her Majesty and the late King George VI visited Vancouver and Victoria on May 29, 1939, during an extensive tour of Canada and the United States of America at that time. Her Majesty also visited Victoria on March 19, 1966. when she visited the Legislative Assembly and laid the cornerstone of the Provincial Museum and the Provincial Archives building. Her Majesty's last visit to British Columbia was a one-day stay in Vancouver on May 4, 1966. Those are the occasions when, in recent times, the Queen Mother was here in British Columbia. I might say that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor and the Hon. Premier have sent congratulatory letters on this happy occasion.

I move the motion which extends the congratulations and best wishes for continued good health and many happy returns to Queen Elizabeth.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my few brief comments to the motion, which I am sure will receive unanimous support in this House. It was a reminder to me when the minister spoke of the Queen Mother's visit — and I think to the minister's running mate as well; both were in the House in 1966 — of that wonderful day when the Queen Mother visited Victoria and the Legislature. I recall one of those wonderful memories of an informal occasion when the desks were moved and there was a friendly atmosphere in this chamber — a matter of note in itself. The Hon. W.A.C. Bennett was the Premier at the time. We spent a delightful afternoon when all the members had a reception with the Queen Mother here in the chamber itself, which was a magnificent use of her chamber.

It is a wonderful occasion to be celebrating the continuity given by the Queen Mother. It is a reminder of the tremendous service that both gave during World War II, which was a universal struggle against dictatorship and fascism brought to a successful conclusion, saving our Commonwealth at the same time. She is a living memory of why this Commonwealth succeeds. Why those of us who are at the lower political level are allowed to have our differences, under the total commitment of all of us who participate to loyalty and the Commonwealth. I would like to add those few words in respect to her and the role she plays in the Commonwealth.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 134: minister's office, $187,509.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do have a couple of questions for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development dealing with Ocean Falls. I'm sure the minister knew I was going to raise this topic during the debate of his estimates. Everyone in this House is aware that Ocean Falls was shut down completely some two months or so ago, and in spite of what has been said on the other side of the House, the fact is that Ocean Falls should not have been shut down. I'll just give you a couple of quick reasons before I ask my questions.

Mr. Chairman. In a six-year period the Ocean Falls Corporation achieved export sales in excess of $150 million — 150 million off-shore dollars that came to Canada and British Columbia that would not have arrived here and would not have been in your budget, Mr. Chairman. Had Ocean Falls been left open, in operation.... During the same period more than $55 million were paid in wages, which in turn generated more than $13 million in income tax revenues. Another $55 million were added to the economy through the purchase of logs, pulp and fuel. Interest paid on loans from the provincial government totalled $2.7 million. Capital taxes, stumpage and water rentals returned approximately $1

[ Page 3678 ]

million to the province. An estimated $2.6 million were paid in provincial sales tax during the same period and during this period the corporation spent approximately $15 million on equipment upgrading and improvements.

The point I'm making here, Mr. Chairman, is that in spite of the fact that the Ocean Falls Corporation was showing a loss over the last couple of years under Social Credit management, it still should not have been closed down, displacing some 423 employees in the loss of jobs to the economy in this province. I quote the words of the chairman of the corporation, who said as recently as April of this year: "Recent studies have shown that Ocean Falls can continue to provide one of the best people service centres on the mid coast. Facilities now in place for medical care, schooling, housing, provisioning and transit service could not be readily duplicated." So there are a lot of good reasons.

The ill-informed second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) said in this House the day before yesterday that the NDP purchased Ocean Falls knowing that the corporation had to be modernized and upgraded, and they did nothing. The fact is that our government commissioned a very expensive study by the world-leading authority on pulp and paper manufacturing. We hired the consultants of Simons, H.A. Ltd. The report they produced was presented to the present government in January 1976. That report indicated, of course, that the plant did need upgrading and modernizing, etc. But what happened? Nothing. This present government, although they'd been in power for approximately five years, did not implement one single recommendation of that report. Nothing was done and the plant, of course, was bound to lose money over that period of time. Bottom line government!

My questions to the minister are simply these — and I hope you're keeping track, Mr. Minister. Is the minister aware of the facts I've just outlined? If so, did he do any cost-benefit analysis with these figures in terms of the future of Ocean Falls? With regard to the future of Ocean Falls, what is the progress, or has there been any?

Mr. Williston said that the flitch and chip mill would absorb some of the unemployed workers. I know very well that the minister is going to get up and say: "All but 26 of the displaced workers of Ocean Falls have found other job opportunities." That is not quite correct, because I checked those figures out again yesterday. Be that as it may, those are the figures that we'll accept on this side of the House. I don't want to get in a long hassle about that.

I would like to know if any timber has been allocated for the proposed so-called flitch and chip mill, how much timber has been allocated, where that timber is located and how many people will be employed in that mill. How many months behind schedule are you on that proposal? You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that the announcement from the government said that as of August 1 this year, which is today, that proposed flitch and chip mill would be in operation. We know very well that that mill is not in operation today, so how many months behind schedule are you? Mr. Williston at one point said probably six months. It looks like you're at least a year behind schedule, if you proceed with the proposal at all. Will any people still living in Ocean Falls be employed in that proposed mill? What is the reason for the delay'?

I asked the minister a series of questions in question period which he took as notice, didn't answer or thought were out of order. But I know the questions are in order. This is regarding breach of contract with the Los Angeles Times, and a possible lawsuit. I'd like to know from the minister how many tonnes of newsprint were contracted in the past by Ocean Falls to supply the Los Angeles Times. How many tonnes are Ocean Falls liable for in the future? In other words, I'd like to know the cost of that settlement. Where are they now in negotiations with the Los Angeles Times, in terms of a possible breach-of-contract suit? Are you negotiating at all? Until what date is the corporation liable? When I use the term "corporation," I'm really saying "the government," because the government is going to have to pick up the tab, whether this matter is settled in or out of court. In the final analysis, the government is going to have to pick up the tab. I suggest that that tab is going to be a minimum of about $22 million. I'd like the minister's answer to that question. Further, I'd like to know how many other customers' orders were not filled by the Ocean Falls Corporation. How many other customers were there? Does the possibility of breach-of-contract suits against the corporation exist with these customers? Have there been negotiations with these other customers? What is happening in that area?

With those few brief questions, I look forward to the minister's answers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Before I attempt to answer the hon. member's questions, I would like to say that I have with me on the floor of the House this morning: Mr. Mac Norris, president and chief executive officer of British Columbia Railway — in case there are questions on the British Columbia Railway; Newell Morrison, chairman of British Columbia Development Corporation; and Dick Butler from the department.

I can certainly appreciate the member's concern about Ocean Falls, because Ocean Falls is in his riding. The closing down of Ocean Falls was not an easy decision for the government. Had it been an easy decision, we probably would have made it two or three years ago. When we inherited Ocean Falls we looked at all the possible angles of how to keep it going. Maybe the member and I and this side of the House differ philosophically a little bit on this question. Probably his government would have invested in a new pulpmill in Ocean Falls; that's where we differ.

We endeavoured to interest the private sector in Ocean Falls. It was really because of lack of timber in the area that we were unable to interest a kraft mill in coming there. I don't really wish to place the blame on anybody for the lack of timber supply. I don't think it would do this House any good to look backward and say that when the previous administration purchased Ocean Falls there was no timber allocation left for Ocean Falls. I don't think that would do any good for the Legislature or the people of Ocean Falls.

The main reason for closing down Ocean Falls was that the mill would have had to be rebuilt. To build a TMP mill in there would require a power line that would have to go down the coast. As you know, today power lines are increasingly expensive to build. So the decision was made to close it down. I don't want to brag, but I think that Mr. Williston has done an excellent job in looking after the people who work there and in assisting the businesses in the area and all the people who live there through a quiet and orderly transition period. But the fact was that the mill was just completely worn out.

What we're trying now is a new experiment. It has taken us a little longer than anticipated to put the wood supply together, but I'm sure that the people in the Ministry of

[ Page 3679 ]

Forests have been working conscientiously and hard to obtain sufficient timber to put this new project together. I don't have to explain to the House or to the member what we're trying to do. I just want to say that it looks very encouraging. If it is successful, indeed it could change the logging and lumber industries on the coast.

My understanding with regard to the timber allocation is that final plans for the alteration of the former pulpmill woodroom could not be made until there was a firm indication of the timber which would be processed through the plant. Of course, you can't build a woodroom until you know exactly the size and shape of the timber you're going to put through there. The timber sale has been defined and will be spread over 11 relatively small logging sites, most of which will be able to accommodate one contract logger. These will be cruised with the extraction roads and dumps being engineered and located starting August 1, 1980. Loggers for nine of the shows, which could involve up to 200 workers, are expected to live in and communicate from Ocean Falls. The first road work will start before the end of the year. The actual timber sale document could be finalized by mid-September. So, indeed, Mr. Member, we certainly are making progress.

Now, Mr. Chairman, through you to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), I'd like to address the issue of a possible lawsuit. As the member well knows, I'm not a lawyer. But I think that there have been many cases in the past where contracts for pulp have not been lived up to, either because of inability to supply or, indeed, inability of the purchaser to take the quantity contracted for. It's my understanding that historically there have been no lawsuits in this regard.

I caution the member on quoting dollars in this particular case, because I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, being as kind to the member as I possibly can, that his numbers are not accurate. I don't want to predict the outcome of any possible lawsuit or whether there will even be a lawsuit. I can appreciate the hon. member's attitude in this. It may be good politics to play with this particular legality, but I would caution the member about saying too much about something that....

Let me put it this way: I respect the hon. member for Mackenzie very much as an individual, and I would not want to see him lose his credibility. Although, as I say, it may sound like good politics at the time to take the government and sort of rub their nose in it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Your credibility is at stake, not mine.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that at the present time it might appear to be good politics, but I have too much respect for the hon. member for Mackenzie to allow him to indulge in this. I would not want to have to stand in this Legislature next year and say: "I told you so." I could have the opportunity this morning to do that with regard to the number of people he said were going to be unemployed and all the problems. But I appreciate the hon. member as an individual, and I would never say to him: "I told you so." I wouldn't want to be given the opportunity to say that next year in my debates when it comes to talking about the lawsuit.

MR. DAVIS: I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman. We've heard a great deal in this House — and outside — about northeast coal. We've read all sorts of reports about costs and even subsidies. Most of it has been speculation; however, there are sonic figures out in the public arena which I know must be taken seriously. Others are highly speculative, and it's the speculative ones I would like to discuss with the hon. minister today.

We are told by various sources that the offering price of northeast coal on board ship at Ridley Island near Prince Rupert in the mid-1980s is $85 a tonne. The Japanese may be prepared to pay as much as $75 a tonne for this good-grade metallurgical coal — or at least that's the way the press reports the prices. The gap or shortfall between the price which the Canadian coal industry is demanding and the figure which our foreign buyers are prepared to pay, both in the mid-1980s, is $10. The gap appears to be $10. Would the hon. minister confirm these figures, or correct them if they need correcting? Again I'm stressing the word-1980s; I'm also talking about prices and not costs. Costs are something else again.

To go on. Mr. Chairman, I gather from what the hon. minister said yesterday, the transportation component of the offering price — and by that I mean the rail and dock offloading component — is $20 a tonne. In arriving at the $85 a tonne offering price. $20 was included for transportation, in other words. Of this $20 figure, $4 was the so-called surcharge, an amount earmarked to help pay for the capital costs of the new rail line from Anzac on B.C. Rail to Tumbler Ridge in the coal mines east of the Rockies themselves.

If I can digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I might say that $4 of the overall $20 of transportation charges is a surcharge amount, air amount which will be set aside to help pay for the new rail line. The remaining $16 would be divided up in roughly equal proportions, one proportion going to B.C. Rail. one to CNR and one for clock-handling charges in the Prince Rupert area. I would appreciate comments from the hon. minister about the $20 figure, and perhaps its breakdown. It is the $4 surcharge which I am really interested in. Is it really supposed to cover the capital charges associated with the construction of the new fine from Anzac to Tumbler Ridge and on to the mines themselves?

Yesterday the minister told us that the estimated capital cost of the rail line, including construction of its right-of-way, bridges and tunnels, would be on the order of $315 million. That's in 1979 dollars. By the time the line is completed in the mid-1980s, allowing for inflation, the figure may be 25 percent higher. Does it include interest during construction? This financial provision, if it is not included, would add perhaps another 20 or 30 percent to the total.

I come up with a capital cost in 1985 dollars of between $400 million and $500 million. This is the figure, of course, which we must take into account when striking rates. It is the figure which we must use in calculating the ongoing payments which will have to be made to cover the capital cost of this new line. If I were the CNR or CPR, looking at an investment of this kind, I would say that the annual provision that I would have to make for the servicing of this roughly $450 million investment would be on the order of 20 percent a year. It would be about $90 million a year. Of this 20 percent, incidentally, 13 percent would be for interest, 5 percent would be set aside each year to pay off the original amount of the debt and 2 percent would be the usual amount allowed for possible overruns. errors in estimating and so on.

We are looking at an annual cost of capital on the new line

[ Page 3680 ]

of $90 million a year. If ten million tonnes of coal are moving over the line, this is $9 a tonne. If it were five million tonnes a year, it would be $18 a tonne. If the movement was on the order of 7.5 million tonnes a year — the figure mentioned yesterday by the minister — the cost of this capital investment in the new rail line facilities would be $13 a tonne. Incidentally, $13 a tonne is the figure which keeps cropping up when I talk to coal mining companies, the CNR, Ottawa or the Japanese. We know that the surcharge is only $4 a tonne. Only $4 a tonne is being set aside out of the quoted price of $85 a tonne f.o.b. Prince Rupert. So there is a shortfall of $9 a tonne.

Somebody will be putting up the $9 a tonne, and it won't be coming out of the price paid by the foreign buyer, even if that buyer pays $85 a tonne at Prince Rupert for our good grade metallurgical coal from northeastern B.C. The sum of $9 a tonne is over and above the presently recoverable cost. It is the order of magnitude of a subsidy — if I can put it that way — which may be applied to northeast coal in the late 1980s and 1990s. Multiplying $9 a tonne by 7.5 million tonnes a year gives us a figure of close to $70 million a year. We are looking at a $70 million a year subsidy in the early years, beginning in the mid-1980s. Am I right? No doubt the hon. minister will correct me if I am wrong in my conclusion concerning who will pay for the new Anzac line or, more correctly, how the capital costs associated with the new Anzac line will be distributed between the foreign buyer and the taxpayer in this country.

I have one last calculation. The shortfall at a rate of 7.5 million tonnes a year is $70 million a year. At ten million tonnes a year it is $50 million a year. At 20 million tonnes a year it is only $10 million a year. So the break-even point, in terms of volume, is between 20 million and 25 million tonnes. That's the volume of northeast coal which would have to move in order for the $4 surcharge to cover all the capital costs. If we assume a sale of 7.5 million tonnes of coal a year to our offshore markets in the mid-1980s and a sale of more than 20 million tonnes a year by the year 2000, then the total subsidy, year after year over that 15-year interval, will be about $500 million. In other words, the overall subsidy between now and the year 2000 could be on the order of half a billion dollars. Of course, everything would have to go right. There mustn't be any unusual cost overruns on the new line. If there are, the taxpayer will pay for these overruns as well.

I'd like the hon. minister to comment on these rough calculations, because they give us the kind of numbers which editorial writers are speculating about. Are they right, or are they wrong? Is there something which the sharp pencil boys in the private sector missed — those who are continually giving us numbers to fret about? I hope the minister can clear up some of my concerns in the process. I don't expect him to answer immediately, because I've given him quite a few numbers, but I do think this is a matter of real public concern.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's questions, as I said yesterday, you can take a slide-rule and you can come up with a lot of calculations depending on the end result you want. I think that in his calculations the member is not considering the amount of coal in the area, and the demand and increasing price for that coal. That, as I said yesterday, is what we have to consider. It's unfortunate that the coal happens to be hidden behind a mountain range — not a great mountain range, but certainly behind a mountain range. If the lay of the land were such that it was level building of a railway track, that 77-mile spur that we're building in there would cost in the vicinity — in escalated dollars — of about $150 million. So that's one of the areas.

In all of the calculations that one wishes to make....

You're not talking about any of the spin-off benefits or the thousands of jobs. I have asked numerous economists to predict for me what the benefit would be to the Canadian economy of an additional $5 billion of yen coming into Canada. I think the writers, and those who would not like to see this project go ahead — there are those people around as well — are taking a very parochial view. Both my department and the private sector have pointed to the $2.5 billion in taxes and economic activity, which economists have a little bit of difficulty putting a handle on.

I think what we have to consider here is the fact that it's either we sell the coal or the the bulk of the purchase goes to Australia. As I've said in this House before, and I'll say it again, Canada is a trading nation. In order to survive and maintain the standard of living that we enjoy in Canada today, we have to be a trading nation. We can talk about building up secondary manufacturing and manufacturing all we want to, but in order to do that we must have a market. When it comes to building up a manufacturing base, with approximately 25 million people in Canada we don't have that great a market. The reason I'm pointing this out to the House this morning is that we must export, and some of our natural resources must be exported. Coking coal is a commodity which is not an energy source; it is a commodity used in the making of steel, the same as we import alumina into Kitimat. We import a natural resource from another country and we process it here. We are exporting our coking coal and processing it in the steel mills of Japan and around the world. The market for coking coal is growing, and the price is increasing.

I think if you were to go back and analyze when the southeast was opened up, that was not an easy decision, as I remember, for the government of the day. They had problems getting Roberts Bank built, and there were those who said the project was not viable and wouldn't be good. All you have to do now is look at the taxes that are being paid on an ongoing basis to the benefit of social services that we supply here in the province of British Columbia, and I think you can understand what I'm talking about.

You can do a number of calculations, hon. member, but you have to take into consideration the growing demand for coal; you also have to take into consideration that the surcharge is an escalating surcharge based on the increase in the price of coal. Nobody can tell me what the price of coal is going to be in 1990, and I don't think even the Japanese steel mills can tell what the price of coal is going to be in 1990. That depends on a lot of factors.

It's very easy to build inflation into this, but when we start to build anything in British Columbia we talk in terms of today's dollars. No one can tell me whether inflation is going to be 5 percent or 10 percent, but that is something we have to live with. As you know, this government has done a great deal to keep inflation down in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, the Vancouver cost-of-living index is the lowest of any of the nine cities rated in Canada. I don't want to get too political this morning, but this government certainly has done a fantastic job in keeping inflation down.

I think that in order to go into this I would have to have

[ Page 3681 ]

my economist go through this in detail, which I'd be happy to do. As I say, there are a number of factors in the future inflation and the price of coal. Nobody can predict that.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to talk about the women's economic rights branch and ask the minister a couple of questions that I asked him last year. He made a commitment to get the answers to me, but I guess the wheels of the gods grind slowly. I haven't received the responses yet, so I'm going to put them to the minister again.

In the 1975 annual report we were told that the objective of the women's economic rights branch were to examine, plan and recommend in all issues affecting the economic rights, economic development and socio-economic status of the women of British Columbia. The report goes on to tell us that during that period the department developed programs which ensured that benefits were equal in terms of men and women who entered into interim planning agreement studies, steel feasibility social impact studies and the northeast coal agreement studies, in terms of seeing that women were treated equally with men at all times in this.

It goes on to itemize workshops which were held with women throughout the province in Vancouver, Victoria, the Slocan Valley, Campbell River, Terrace, the East Kootenays and Nelson. It talks about the branch being used as a resource centre for women in terms of the many statistical inquiries considering the position of women in the B.C. economy, and tells us that that information was collected as a direct response from women's groups in the province. It also talks about a paper done on women in pensions, which again was presented to the Canadian Public Service Pensions conference at Harrison Hot Springs that year, specifically relating to what happens to women out of the pension scheme. It talks about the coordinator of the branch speaking at women's organizations and chambers of commerce and attending conferences generally talking about the economic situation of women in this province.

I've been through the 1979-80 annual report and I have found one sentence in the entire report, which says: "Division staff have participated in socio-economic and manpower evaluations, including several studies for the interministerial equal opportunities committee." I have seen that report and I know that's one thing that's been done. As opposed to 1975, where we had a full reporting on what was being done in terms of the impact of the economic development on the women of this province, in the 1979-80 report we get one sentence referring to that.

During his estimates almost a year ago, on July 5, I raised a couple of questions to the minister relating to the fact that in my perception the women's economic rights branch had been phased out — that in fact it no longer existed. The minister said: "I appreciate the member's comments. However, the mandate of the women's economic rights branch has not been wiped out, and to say so is not right. I would like to suggest that you go to the ministry and have a talk with the person in charge. As a matter of fact, the mandate has been widened." I was fascinated by that response. I said to the minister that I would really appreciate being told what the mandate was, the ways in which it had been expanded and also something about the budget. I know the 1975 budget included one coordinator, one senior staff, two junior staff and a clerk steno, costing in the vicinity of $61,000.

The minister then stood up and said: "I'll be happy to let you have a copy of the increased mandate. I don't know if we'll be able to actually break out the number of people who work on this program, because it's been integrated. I'm particularly interested in your commitment, and I'll be very happy to get the information of the expanded mandate and expanded budget to you." That was on July 5 that that commitment was made. He said: "I'm particularly interested in your commitment and I will get the information about the expanded mandate of the women's economic rights branch and its expanded budget." That was nearly a year and a month ago. Mr. Chairman, and to this point I have not received anything from the minister either about the expanded mandate or the expanded budget. As I said before, the only thing we have is one sentence in the annual report dealing with this. So I want to put a couple of questions to the minister and ask him whether it's possible to speed up his response, because I don It want to have to wait a year in terms of this.

May I have, articulated by the minister — I don't need it in writing, because Hansard will do that for us — the expanded mandate of the women's economics rights branch? May I have, articulated by the minister, the expanded budget of the women's economics rights branch? I would also like to have a list of all the women's groups who have been in any kind of contact with your ministry on issues of economic development as they pertain to women. I would also like to have a list of all the projects which have been funded by your ministry. I'll accept this information verbally; I don't want to have to wait a year for you to put it in writing. I want a list of the projects, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is listening. I also want a list of any consultations done by the expanded women's economics rights branch. What conferences were attended? What groups were spoken to? What groups were consulted with? What information was given? In what ways were women in the province assisted by this particular branch in terms of their economic rights?

Appendix B of the 1975 report talked about programs which would ensure the provision of support, advice and encouragement for women setting up their own business. May I have a list from the minister of instances in which provision of support, advice and encouragement for women setting up their own business was afforded by this particular branch?

I would also like a report from the ministry — on this one I'm willing to wait and accept it in writing — on the impact of the economic development programs of the province on the women of this province, because this was one of the mandates which was set down in appendix B in 1975, and we're still waiting fm that report. I want to repeat that, Mr. Chairman: I want a reporting of the impact of the economic development programs of this province on the women of the province.

Mr. Chairman, the federal government has been doing that, and they have issued information — I'm quoting from the The Daily Colonist, because I haven't got my own copy with me here — which would seem to indicate that the gap is widening and that, in fact, the impact is a negative one. The federal government's report is that "Canadian employers, economic planners and decision-makers have been shortsighted and 'languorous'" is the word they use, "in terms of dealing with the economic status of women in this country." Now in 1975, with that in mind, this particular branch was established. Presumably, it's not only been in existence since then, but in the minister's own words of July 5, 1975, it's been expanded — not just its mandate but its budget as well. So let's have the reporting. With an expanded mandate and an expanded budget, we should be able to see some kind of

[ Page 3682 ]

positive response in terms of the impact of the economic development of this province on women. We should be going counter to the Canadian reporting, and if that is true, then I would like the minister to give us that information at this time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to endeavour to answer some of the member's questions, and I'd like to start out by saying that certainly with the economy of this province growing the way it is and strengthening it, certainly every day that goes by there are indeed more opportunities not only for women, but indeed opportunity for both sexes in the province to improve their lot. The member still seems to be under the misapprehension that there was a women's branch set up in the ministry. It was set up but it was never funded, nor were any of the positions authorized by Treasury Board when I took over this ministry. But we have put on a number of seminars throughout the province. Those seminars, Mr. Chairman, are not limited to any one particular individual of any one particular sex. Certainly those opportunities are open to everybody in the province. We do not want to discriminate against any particular sex in this province; as I say, economic opportunities are open to everybody.

Now with regard to the particular branch that the member thinks was established, it is now part of the socioeconomic analysis unit in the economic analysis and research bureau. Through this particular area, we do identify, in the studies that we do, opportunities, particularly for women. That is on new projects and special studies that we are doing, and there is special emphasis given in these studies to the women of our province.

I might outline for the member that some of the major initiatives completed or ongoing since May 10, 1979, include: a community profile of Ocean Falls — this will be published in the near future; a study of advancement opportunities in the B.C. public service; a study of selected classification, by a study of 1,200 public servants, to determine how advancement occurs for both men and women — the study is completed and has been forwarded to the Hon. Evan Wolfe a statistical analysis by sex of the British Columbia public service, 1979 — this department played the lead role in establishing a service-wide data base profiling the locations of men and women in the British Columbia public service, and the report has been released; the coordinating of a provincial socioeconomic impact review of the Foothills pipeline, which took the opposite sex into special consideration; and the assessment of socioeconomic impacts of resource projects, playing a lead role in assessment — setting terms of reference of review of socioeconomic impacts of resource projects, monitoring models, development of range of models for monitoring, costing socioeconomic impacts of resource development.

I would like to remind the member, Mr. Chairman, that setting up a bureau in my department is not going to be half as beneficial to the women in the workforce in this province as will be a strong and growing economy with opportunities for everybody in the province. Maybe the member would outline it for me, because I'm not aware of any great impact that the federal government department of opportunities for women has had on the labour force in Canada. I can't really see it. I think that education, and certainly an advancing economy, will be the best way of assuring that all people in this province.... I think the member must also realize that this government made quite a step forward in protecting the rights of women when we passed a law through this Legislature indeed seeing that women are equally treated in cases of separation and marriage breakdown. I think that that was a major breakthrough, and I think that if you did a case history you would see that many women who have gone on their own are doing quite well by themselves.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't realize that the minister of small business was responsible for the Family Relations Act, but I certainly want to thank him for it now that I know that it comes under his purview. I didn't know that that was his.

However, I just want to get some specific answers to the specific questions I raised. I quote from the minister's own words, when he said that "the women's economic rights branch is still doing the same function as it was before; as a matter of fact, the function is being widened." I'm quoting specifically from the statement that the minister made. I know about the public service report; I have a copy of it. But the branch was established not just to help women in the public service, but women throughout the province.

I don't want to repeat the questions that I raised before. Would the minister please read the Blues and in less than a year, if possible, get me the answers to the very specific questions I asked in terms of the impact of economic development on the women of the province.

MR. SEGARTY: I am pleased to take my place in the debate of the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are three coal companies currently operating in southeastern British Columbia: Kaiser Resources, Byron Creek Collieries and Fording Coal. Each of those companies has expansion plans underway. Fording has an expansion plan underway at Elkford, and Kaiser, which recently signed an agreement with Korea, is going ahead with the Greenhills development. Crows Nest Industries are constructing a mine just north of Sparwood.

The East Kootenay region of British Columbia has been a reliable supplier of coal down through the years, and in order to continue to be a reliable supplier of coal and to accommodate the expansion plans of these coal companies it's important that the Roberts Bank port facility be expanded now. Without the commitment to expand the Roberts Bank port facility immediately, without a guarantee that Roberts Bank will be expanded, these projects are in jeopardy. Roberts Bank is operating at capacity and it's important that this project be undertaken as quickly as possible. It's expected to double to 20 million tonnes a year by the end of the 1980 decade.

I'm aware that in 1977 the British Columbia supreme court ruled that the province of British Columbia owned the land on which the Roberts Bank port facility is located — and, indeed, the Georgia strait. Currently the government of Canada is appealing this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. But surely in 1980 an agreement of some kind can be worked out between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada to expand this port facility. This will not put in jeopardy the thousands of jobs for British Columbians and $1 billion in revenue for British Columbia in the 1980s alone.

As a representative in this Legislature from southeastern British Columbia, I have no objection to the expansion into

[ Page 3683 ]

the northeast coal fields. I think it's an important step forward. It's something that the British Columbia Social Credit government has always done. They have always had foresight in creating economic development in the interior of British Columbia, and certainly if it weren't for the Social Credit government's past history in pioneering the interior of British Columbia, there would still be nothing beyond Hope.

However, I have some concern — just one — and the people of my riding have a concern, and that is that there will not be a $30,000-per-man job subsidy for workers going into that region to work in the coal industry. They've got some concern that that might steal the employees of the people of our region. I wonder if the minister could answer that question and perhaps give me a breakdown on where the Roberts Bank port facility is — where we're going with it — and how long it's going to take to get the question of ownership resolved or the expansion plans underway.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the hon. member's questions, I know that he has grave concern for his constitutuency, and so do I as a matter of fact. As you know, during my missions to Korea and Japan I naturally worked very hard to increase our coal sales from that area, and have met with Pohang Iron and Steel on a number of occasions to endeavour to obtain additional contracts for British Columbia. I'm certainly very happy that Kaiser recently did sign a contract with Pohang Iron and Steel.

As the member knows, during the past few months negotiations have been going on between the province and the federal government with regard to Roberts Bank. It is indeed unfortunate that these negotiations have taken so long, but they have taken some time because of the court case and the whole question of ownership of offshore lands in the Strait of Georgia.

I'm certainly very pleased to announce to the member that yesterday I forwarded to the Hon. Jean-Luc Pépin an agreement outlining British Columbia's position. As I said in the beginning, the agreement does not prejudice the Strait of Georgia case or the long-term ownership. However, I would like to say that we are putting some safeguards for British Columbia in that agreement. One of the safeguards is that we want to see the overall plan that the National Harbours Board has for the expansion of Roberts Bank. We want to ensure that when we give them the title — and we're quite prepared to give them the title for the land they need — they will go ahead and develop it immediately, because it is needed. I think that rather than just pass over the land, we want to ensure that they are indeed going to spend that $60 million, or whatever it is, and ensure that it's developed. We've also built in some safeguards — indeed, for all of western Canada, shippers and producers — to ensure that, because we're basically giving the federal government a $20 million gift in giving them the land there, the rates on that through-port are not going to hamper the movement of goods from all western Canadian provinces. That has indeed gone to the Hon. Jean Luc Pépin by special courier. I'm looking forward to him coming out in the very near future, and to us sitting down and signing an agreement.

I might also say that the province has once again guaranteed all the hydraulic studies. They can proceed immediately. We've said, as we did in the past, that we will be responsible in the long run if the land should revert to us or whatever. It is all involved in a court case — and you know that I am not a lawyer. But we are guaranteeing them funds so that they can go ahead and do their hydraulic studies and so forth. I am very pleased to say to the member — through you, Mr. Chairman — that we have reached what I hope will be an agreement for the speedy conclusion of the development of the great port of Roberts Bank.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister recalls a meeting with Mr. Arthur Elworthy that occurred in mid-September of last year — to be precise, the Wednesday prior to the minister's leaving for his trip to Tokyo and Korea.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I had several meetings with Mr. Elworthy during the time that I was responsible for the operation of B.C. Steamship Company. Most of those meetings were held in confidence. I certainly wouldn't want to tell the member all the things that I talked to Mr. Elworthy about, particularly in my first meeting with him.

MR. BARBER: Does the minister have confidence that Mr. Elworthy is an honest man?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. first member for Victoria, I think that is a very unfair question. I respect the integrity of all my fellow human beings until proven otherwise.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Elworthy informed me on April 2 of this year, and he informed other persons on later dates, that on the Wednesday prior to your leaving for Tokyo and Korea you advised him clearly and specifically that the cabinet had decided to award the vessel Queen of Surrey to B.C. Steamship Company in order that it might be used on the Victoria-Seattle run this year. Is Mr. Elworthy correct in his recounting of that conversation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I stated not too long ago. I had many negotiations with Mr. Elworthy. If the member wants to talk about a responsibility which I no longer have, I might as well tell him right now that I am not going to bring to the floor of this Legislature or outside in public, now or at any time in the future, any of the conversations held between myself and Mr. Elworthy. I can see that it will do Mr. Elworthy no good, it will do B.C. Steamship Company no good and it will do the general public of British Columbia no good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind the hon. first member for Victoria that restrictions under Committee of Supply debate do not afford the proper opportunity for discussing actions for which a minister is not responsible.

MR. BARBER: That's quite so. The Chairman knows, of course, that the minister is still on the board of B.C. Steamship Company. There's no denying that. It's also clear that candid and straightforward replies to these questions about decisions taken in September of last year might also do some harm to the government, although the minister didn't mention that.

Did the minister instruct the board of directors of B.C. Steamship Company to proceed with drawings for the refit of the vessel Queen of Surrey?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 3684 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I might like to bring the hon. first member for Victoria up to date and inform him that I am no longer a director of B.C. Steamship Company. I would suggest that he direct his questions to the present cabinet minister responsible for B.C. Steamship Company, the Hon. Alex Fraser, Minister of Transportation and Highways.

MR. BARBER: I am interested to hear of the change in management. That may or may not be a good sign for the corporation. Nonetheless, it is an established principle here that before awarding this year's salary we have a right to ask about how last year's salary was spent. That's an honoured principle in the parliamentary tradition. So again I ask the minister: did he in fact instruct — through Mr. Elworthy or in any other way — the board of directors of B.C. Steamship Company to proceed with the drawings for a refit of the vessel Queen of Surrey in order that it might be used on the Victoria-Seattle run?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not much of a lawyer, but I again advise the member that the meetings I had with Mr. Elworthy were held in my office, in confidence. I have no intention of doing so, because to answer specific questions about that would really mislead this Legislature as to the total picture of the conversation. With respect, as I advised the hon. first member for Victoria, to answer specific questions about that conversation would maybe give a distorted view of the total conversation, and I have no intention of going into the total conversation.

MR. BARBER: I rise because I have charity in my heart, and deep feelings of sympathy for the minister. He's perfectly correct: we too worry about distorted conversations. That's why I'm asking him to present, without breaking confidences, his side of the conversation; because, you see, at the moment the public only has one side of the conversation, and that's Mr. Elworthy's side. As a matter of sympathy and human compassion, which I feel deeply for the minister, would he take this opportunity, favourably granted to him by the opposition — because we care about him — to tell his side of the story?

Did he or did he not in any way whatsoever advise and instruct the board of B.C. Steamship that they were to win the vessel Queen of Surrey for use on the Victoria-Seattle run? It's because I care about the minister and his reputation that I ask this. I wouldn't want Mr. Elworthy's side to be the only side that got out.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I say, I'm certainly reluctant to discuss the activities of British Columbia Steamship, in that I'm no longer responsible for the operation of that corporation. Mr. Chairman, I'll take your guidance in this matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member have any other questions? Is he prepared to continue with those questions, and leave the Chair a moment to get back to the other matter?

MR. BARBER: Is the minister aware that on the basis of advice which he is alleged to have given B.C. Steamship, that corporation subsequently....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. If you could possibly pursue another avenue while I'm reviewing the matter that the minister has asked for guidance on, it would be appreciated; otherwise, I'll just have to ask for a few moments for consideration. I'm sure the member has other topics he wishes to discuss.

MR. BARBER: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you don't want me to ask anything at all about the decision to place the Queen of Surrey on the Victoria-Seattle run? Is that correct — nothing whatsoever?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Until I've made a....

MR. BARBER: You need to reflect on this for a while.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: I'd like to have it straight in my mind exactly what it is that Mr. Chairman is going to reflect on. The question before us is: when there is a change in a ministry, are we allowed to ask the minister what decisions were made in the previous year? Are we allowed to review what the minister has done in the previous year? Obviously we can't ask the new minister; the new minister wasn't in charge at the time. So that's the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. That's what we're taking a couple of moments for.

The first member for Victoria continues on anything else.

MR. BARBER: Such carte blanche! I'd like to talk about music education for the gifted, and to point out how Benjamin Britten uniquely stands in the achievement of western...blah-blah. Obviously I can't talk about quite anything.

Well, I'll give a little speech then. I won't ask any questions.

Without referring to the minister's own involvement, I'll talk about the problems associated with the Victoria-Seattle run and the commitment that the people of Victoria would like to win from the government. However, I'm not referring to the decision made by the hon. minister last year, but rather a decision made by the government, as announced on January 31 of this year by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis.)

I think that even the most ardent Socred will admit that the Victoria-Seattle service has become a run plagued by chaos, losses to the taxpayer, and losses to the general economy of, the tourist sector.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the member would like to make a political speech regarding the Seattle-Victoria run, but I'd like to ask him to relate it to my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, on the point that was raised, I think an analogy would be the best way. For example, a minister who was previously responsible for another ministry, i.e. a member who may have been.... For example, the Attorney-General has now changed; in his new capacity he could no longer be asked questions about matters that happened while he was Attorney-General. The analogy would be the same in this case, hon. member. It is a long-standing practice and tradition of the House that only his present administrative duties may be discussed in committee.

[ Page 3685 ]

Therefore strict relevance must be adhered to, and questions regarding any previous capacity would be out of order.

On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, don't you feel that this may be a dangerous rule? A premier who wanted to hide something that happens in a ministry — and I'm not saying the Premier does, of course — could at the last moment before estimates come into this House change the ministry, and what that Premier is trying to hide would forever be hidden by your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not my ruling; it is the interpretation of our standing orders and the traditions of parliament. It is not for me to alter or change what exists in our standing orders and the traditions of parliamentary discussion. The point that the hon. member made may be a very valid point. Nevertheless, the Chair has no alternative but to apply the rules that govern our debate. Those rules are strict relevance and current administrative responsibility.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, hypothetically the minister that we're questioning now could have been taken off the board of B.C. Steamship for that very purpose — that the truth could never be found. All the shuffling that went on could have been to avoid having questions answered in the House. That could be the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in the first place it is virtually impossible for the Chair to consider hypothetical questions, but if that argument were extended and if, for example, a minister had occupied two or three previous ministries, then the argument could be carried on that each of these ministries could then be responsible. The statement by the Chair on the matter is one that has guided parliament for virtually centuries.

MR. LEA: When we were questioning the Premier earlier in the estimates with the very questions that we were asking this minister, the Premier said that he couldn't answer them and we were to ask this minister when it became his estimate time. The Premier has skilfully avoided answering the questions and set up a case where the minister, according to the rules, can't answer the case. It's a perfect coverup.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the term "coverup" has on numerous occasions been ruled unparliamentary. I would ask, in the best traditions of parliament, if the member would withdraw.

MR. LEA: I withdraw.

MRS. DAILLY: I have just a further point of order on this matter, Mr. Chairman. I think the opposition could accept your interpretation — an interpretation that, as you say, has been used in former sessions under former Chairmen — but I think we would probably be ready to cease debate on this if we could have an assurance that there is someone on the government side that we will be able to direct these valid questions to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as much as the Chair would like to assist the member, it is far beyond the Chair's capacity or competence to give any such assurance. That would have to come during questioning and certainly not at the insistence or otherwise of the Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: Then I understand that we will have the opportunity to ask these questions of another minister, and the interpretation will come from the Chairman as to whether that minister is the one we can apply the questions to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. BARBER: I will therefore recast all of my questions as follows: in a debate on the economic development of southern Vancouver Island, I wish to ask the minister's comments on certain decisions that were made in the past and may be made in the future regarding the economic health and vitality of the community which I have the privilege to serve as an MLA.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's never been better.

MR. BARBER: It's never been better. I'm grateful for the flattery. Thank you. I'm sure that's not what you intended.

My questions to the minister do not relate to decisions that he may or may not have made in mid-September of last year that cost the taxpayer $54,000. Rather, I will ask him to comment on the economic impact of certain decisions that were made by the former minister responsible for the B.C. Steamship Corporation. I ask him to offer that commentary as a means of guiding us in Victoria in such a way that we do not again have to suffer in terms of economic development — the ministry and the theme for which this individual is responsible — the same problems that we suffered last fall and are suffering currently. Within the strictest interpretation of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I therefore ask the minister to comment on the economic impact to the people of Victoria on the decision that was apparently made to take the Princess Marguerite off the run and replace it with the vessel Queen of Surrey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one of the guiding rules of our parliament is that we cannot do indirectly by one means what we cannot do by another. The member, I'm sure, is very familiar with that guiding principle, and I must ask that he rephrase his questions in a more appropriate and strictly relevant manner.

MR. LAUK: I rise on a point of order. I was in my office, Mr. Chairman, when I heard the recent ruling that Mr. Chairman made. We sat in this Legislature for 27 days questioning the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I'm making a point of order that I wish the Chairman to consider. The Premier, instead of answering those questions, said: ''Deal with the minister in charge." When we asked questions on B.C. Steamships, he pointed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and said: "You will ask that minister. I will not answer the

[ Page 3686 ]

questions in my estimates. It's not my responsibility; it's the responsibility of the minister in charge."

Mr. Chairman, rightly or wrongly — but rightly, because we accept the rulings of the Chair — you supported the Premier in that point of view. Now we're in a position where we want to question this minister on those very subjects that the Premier straight-armed. Are we precluded from doing that? If so, the Legislature then becomes, in committee, incapable of questioning these ministers on their performance of their public duty, and I'm sure that the rules should not be interpreted — and there is lots of precedent for this — so as to defeat the basic purpose of the Legislature. That's exactly what's happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your point of order, hon. member. The member clearly, though, is canvassing a matter that had already been clarified by the Chair. But as the hon. member is well aware, notwithstanding the points raised by the member and notwithstanding what one member, or minister or another may have at one time or another stated, the Chair is powerless to do otherwise than to deal with the standing orders and rules that are at the Chair's command. To do otherwise would be a violation of those rules and a violation of the responsibility of the Chair.

MR. LAUK: The overriding rule that I asked the Chairman to consider in this case is the responsibility of the Committee of Supply to question ministers in their area of performance. Where it appears to the Chair that the committee has no opportunity to investigate these areas because of a literal interpretation of the rules, the Chair must be flexible enough to allow the investigation. It's happened in previous years — I haven't the examples before me, but it's happened in committee before, and the Chairman has allowed members to question ministers who have just changed responsibilities. Surely that's in keeping with the flow of business in the House in allowing members of the opposition to fulfil their responsibility to the people of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I sincerely appreciate the hon. member's intent in his questions on advice from the Chair, but short of the member actually quoting a specific instance to the Chair, I must again reiterate that the Chair is powerless to do other than enforce the regulations, the rules and the guidelines that are before the House.

MR. LAUK: I can cite one example. When the Hon. Mr. Strachan changed part of his responsibilities — I think it was in the spring of 1975 — the Chairman of the committee allowed the inquiry of Mr. Strachan to be pursued by the opposition members, even though those responsibilities had been transferred to another minister. The reason for that was that those responsibilities were transferred in the course of estimates and the minister to whom they'd been transferred had already been before the Committee of Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, if the member would be good enough to supply the Chair with that ruling, the Chair would certainly consider the matter, but in the meantime, and in the absence of such a specific, the ruling of the Chair must stand. The Chair will, of course, be receptive to any such information from the member and would welcome the same.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, it's a difficult matter for the opposition to pursue questions which involve the expenditure of public funds when we're denied leave of the Chair to ask the only minister of whom we can properly ask them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must advise the member that the Chair gives advice and rulings.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the ruling which you were attempting to enunciate earlier. I have heard Harvey say it before; I am sure he's got it written down somewhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: The Speaker.

What I am now attempting to do, if I may, is demonstrate the economic impact in my riding of a decision taken to at least temporarily put the Surrey on the Victoria-Seattle run in place of the Marguerite.

One of the impacts of that decision was that the Crown spent $54,000 needlessly in payments to a company called Marine Design Associates Ltd. located in my riding. I am therefore describing the economic impact here in my riding of the decision to make payments on November 20, 1979, in the amount of $24,656.98 to Marine Design Associates Ltd., 493 Garbally Road, Victoria. I am talking about the economic impact in my riding of a decision to spend $20,140.23 in October 1979 to make payments to the same company for the same apparent purpose, which was to pay for refit drawings of the vessel Queen of Surrey.

It is a curious thing that the government would decide to spend $54,000 in my riding for the economic impact that decision had. It is a curious thing because it would appear to be the case that the minister formerly responsible advised Mr. Elworthy that the vessel Queen of Surrey would be put on the Victoria-Seattle run. On the basis of that, we then examine the economic impact of the expenditure of $54,000 by B.C. Steamship Company in my riding to provide refit drawings for the vessel Surrey.

I have a copy of a letter dated September 26, 1979, signed by Mr. A.B. Elworthy, president and general manager of the corporation. It is directed to a Mr. R.L. Marwood, principal naval architect, Marine Design Associates Ltd., 493 Garbally Road. The letter reads:

"Dear Sirs:

"Re: MV Queen of Surrey. Further to our recent conversation, this will confirm that British Columbia Steamship Company, 1975, Ltd. wishes your company to commence research and design work on the prospect of placing MV Queen of Surrey on the Victoria-Seattle route.

"This will include all necessary ship drawings, Victoria and Seattle terminal approach changes and such other modifications and approvals to place the vessel in service in a fully operational manner by May 1, 1980, as set out in your proposal of January 1978. The service should reflect the growing awareness for foot passengers to make the voyage from Seattle to Victoria, but should not preclude the increased auto capacity of MV Queen of Surrey.

"This work is to be carried out at normal consulting rates as prescribed by the British Columbia Ministry of Highways schedule, and we would require you

[ Page 3687 ]

to liaise with Mr. G. Hoare, company comptroller in this matter.

Yours very truly,

A.B. Elworthy."

I wonder whether the minister could tell us why, in his opinion, the economic impact described by this payment of $54,000 would have been justified — why, in his opinion, such expenditures of public funds to the benefit of Marine Design Associates for placing the Queen of Surrey on the Victoria-Seattle run could be justified.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly can appreciate the member's very deep concern about the question that he is trying to raise in the Legislature this morning. I might say that I am sure that if his concern is as great as it appears in this Legislature this morning, he would have taken the opportunity many months ago to come to my office, sit down and endeavour to obtain the answers to those questions. The thought would certainly never enter my mind to maybe say that the member is trying to make some political hay out of a situation. I might remind the member that British Columbia Ferry Corporation dumps I forget how many millions and millions of people in Victoria every year.

For the benefit of the House and the member, Mr. Chairman, I might give some statistics about the fantastic growth of Vancouver Island in the last decade. Certainly it is very difficult at the present time to travel anywhere on Vancouver Island.... People are happy. Business is booming. The hotels in downtown Victoria, I understand, are running at practically 100 percent capacity. Business is very good indeed, because we have certainly, under this government, created a good climate for the economy. I don't care whether you go to Duncan, Nanaimo, Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Comox, Courtenay, Port Alberni or Tofino, no matter where you go on great Vancouver Island the economy is indeed very strong.

Yes, there is great development taking place on Vancouver Island, and, with regard to Victoria, I might inform the hon. first member for Victoria that in the last decade the population of greater Victoria has gone from 189,200 people in 1970 to 231,000 people in 1980. The gross income for the population in 1969 was $596,100,000 and some ten years later, in 1979, that has almost quadrupled to $2,103,720,000. That is a tremendous increase. I think that Victoria is certainly growing, and I took forward to seeing some new hotels built in Victoria so that we can accommodate the tremendous growth that is taking place in Victoria.

The trading area population has also grown. It was 356,000 in 1970 and that has grown to 440,000 in 1980. I say that's a very substantial growth. When we look at the gross income of the trading area population we see that it has almost quadrupled in the last ten years as well. In 1969 it was $1,121,400,000 and, as I say, that has almost quadrupled to $4,007,100,000 in 1979. That, I would think, is a very substantial growth, and it is a growth that I don't think is enjoyed by every city in North America. As a matter of fact, some are going backwards. But here in greater Victoria the growth has been really fantastic.

Construction shows a tremendous growth from $89 million in 1969 to $159,612,624 in 1979. If we look at the assessment, it is also nearly double. The value of retail trade — and I'm sure that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would be interested in this figure — was $320 million in 1969 and in 1979 it way more than doubled to $765 million, which was a tremendous growth in ten years. If you project that to the next decade, you can see that there certainly is a great deal of growth taking place here in Victoria.

I could go on with several other figures, like manufacturing value and so forth, but I did just want to point out to the hon. first member for Victoria that there is indeed a good growth taking place. I might say that at the same time we are preserving the aesthetic value of this great capital city. Progress is being made in developing the Inner Harbour, and I look forward to Victoria growing but not diminishing the way of life that we are able.... Those of us particularly from out of town, who have the opportunity to work here with the government, certainly appreciate that. That way of life is not enjoyed — I know this has nothing to do with economy and I hope you'll just allow me a few moments — by all the citizens in some of the other areas of our great province.

Certainly there is growth in economy. I have worked, as you know, Mr. Chairman, with the local people in Victoria in establishing an industrial commissioner. The member might also know that we have worked through the British Columbia Development Corporation to establish a marine biology centre in Saanich.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I realize, Mr. Member, that it's Saanich and the Islands.

It seems to me that I have here it here somewhere, if the Chair will just give me a moment.... I might outline for the member some of the ways in which this ministry has cooperated with people in this area. Mr. Chairman, for the record maybe I might advise the hon. first member for Victoria about some of the projects we in my ministry have cooperated on. The Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development did fund 50 percent, with the Greater Victoria Economic Development Commission, the industrial commissioner to help economic development in the area. We're working now to ensure that indeed that industrial development commission does carry on.

The British Columbia Development Corporation offered assistance to the municipality of Saanich — I realize that area is not in the member's riding, but it certainly has a bearing on the economic activity of Victoria. We offered assistance to the municipality of Saanich for the development of industrial parks. The British Columbia Development Corporation looks forward to working with them. As I said, it's not a smoke-stack industrial park. It's an industrial park which will not leave any pollution but will still provide jobs and will assist the economy of Victoria.

As you know, we have also given financial assistance to Trident Aircraft to get established out at the airport; hopefully that will be a very clean industry and one of high technology. It will be good: it will fit in with the overall development of Saanich and Victoria.

We are building a hangar at the airport to assist the aviation manufacturing industry.

British Columbia Development Corporation is putting together a marine technology centre in conjunction with the federal government, to be located next to the federal institute. I haven't got the latest report on that, but I understand that most of the space in that centre has indeed been taken up. It too will be a high-technology industry and will not offer any pollution. This minister is certainly very happy to see this

[ Page 3688 ]

take place through the Development Corporation, which will assist in the economic growth of the Island. No, this ministry didn't do it, Mr. Chairman, but certainly the rebuilding of the Crystal Gardens was on the initiative of this government, and it will assist the economy. It will allow visitors to maybe spend an extra day or so going through the Crystal Gardens.

Also, I won't take credit for the convention centre, but I'm certainly very interested in it because it has to do with helping the economy of the area.

Mr. Chairman, I won't waste the time of the House, but there are a number of other areas where the government has taken the initiative, partly through my department, to assist the economy of this area. I'm very pleased with the results, and I understand that the business community of greater Victoria is also very pleased and happy with the type of growth taking place here in Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for his lengthy, obscure and completely unrelated answer to the questions I raised. I would like to, sardonically, congratulate the government on wasting $54,000 in my riding in payments to Marine Design Associates Ltd. for the ill-advised scheme dreamed up by a minister, who is no longer responsible, to replace the vessel Princess Marguerite with the vessel Queen of Surrey. We're not allowed to ask questions of the minister who did it, even though we're in his estimates. However, I do wish, again sardonically, to congratulate the government for misspending $54,000 on a ridiculous scheme to put the Queen of Surrey where it does not belong. I would like to inform the minister that the design, which was the result of this $54,000 waste of taxpayers' money, now takes the form of a painting in the office of Walter Fisher, who is the owner and manager of the Swiftsure Inn. If the minister is interested in seeing the results of his handiwork, he might want to go to the office of the Swiftsure Inn, where he will see the design for the Surrey that never was on the Seattle-Victoria line. I thank the minister for the government's investment of the totally unnecessary amount of $54,000 in the economy of Victoria in order to refit a vessel that didn't belong there.

I would like to observe as well that, thanks to the government, so far, at least as of June 30 this year, the Queen of Prince Rupert, the replacement vessel for the Princess Marguerite, by way of a deficit has contributed $1.1 million to the economy of Victoria. Again I thank the government for unnecessarily spending $1.1 million this summer to subsidize losses on the hopeless venture of the Victoria-Seattle run.

I would also like to thank the minister for the anticipated impact of the subsidies that will be required to make up for the jetfoil losses and for the $1.2 million cost of the refit of the Queen of Prince Rupert.

I would also like to thank the minister, again sardonically, for allowing us the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of Social Credit mismanagement by unnecessary payments and wasteful expenditures to cover up the fact that they bungled the Victoria-Seattle run. So I do thank the minister, more or less sincerely, for making such generous payments that were never needed and that, as the result of good planning, would never have been made in the first place here in my riding, to cover up the fact that they blew it by taking the Princess Marguerite off the service. I'm pleased with the economic impact of these unnecessary expenditures in my riding, and I congratulate the minister for his personal responsibility for them.

MR. LEA: A moment ago, when the minister was winding up part of his speech, he said he didn't want to waste the time of this House. For three and a half hours yesterday afternoon and today he has wasted the time of the House. Before, the minister had a different style; he yelled and screamed, was full of bombast and didn't answer the questions. Today he speaks quietly and doesn't answer the questions. Many of the questions that my colleague, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), asked were questions that were asked during another waste of time in this House.

We asked all of these questions of the Premier. The Premier said, "Ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development," and then cleverly transferred all of the duties away from that minister so we can't do it. I would not call it a coverup so I can't call it anything, because I can't think of any other name to describe the situation — a clever, clever coverup, to make sure that the opposition and the people of this province don't find out what this government has done in the past year. That's what we're going through here. We went through it for hours with the Premier. We've gone through it for three and a half hours with the minister on coal, Ocean Falls and the ferry situation here in Victoria. Three and a half hours of no answers and quiet mumbo jumbo is what we've had to go through.

We don't think the minister's going to answer any questions; that's our opinion. The Premier didn't through days of questioning. The minister in three and a half hours has indicated to the House that he doesn't intend to answer any question other than questions that have already been answered through public knowledge. We do not intend to waste the time of this House and the taxpayers' money by keeping this House longer than it should be kept to get nothing. The minister may as well have told his staff to stay at home; we get nothing from them. He has, over the course of his stewardship of this portfolio, been a disaster, from the opposition's point of view, I believe from the people's point of view, and I'm also sure from many of his colleagues' points of view.

He's been described in the press as a disaster time and time again. I think almost everyone agrees with the press. We're going to vote against this minister's salary because we feel he's not earning his money. We feel he's doing a disservice to this province by not putting Industry and Small Business Development in the forefront of the priorities of this government. He is a close confidante of the Premier, the top adviser to the Premier and is described by the press as a buffoon inadequate and incompetent.

We will be voting against this. This is the last you're going to hear from us on this minister. We're not going to get any answers; we're positive of that. He is a disaster. The press is right. The people are right. We agree with the press and the people. We're willing to let this go and vote against this salary.

Vote 134 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 3689 ]

NAYS — 17

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 135: administration, $8,567,203 — approved.

Vote 136: small business development, $2,031,695 approved.

Vote 137: grants, $5,765,500 — approved.

Vote 138: federal — provincial shared-cost programs, $41,032,000 — approved.

Vote 139: building occupancy charges, $715,000 approved.

Vote 140: computer and consulting charges, $849,000 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report great resolution.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND
SECURITY AGENCIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I want to offer on this section. I'd like to amend section 25, line 3, by inserting, after the word "member" and before "including," the words "one member who is not connected or has been a member of a security business."

I raised this in second reading. In respect to the advisory council, there should be at least one person who is not connected with the industry at all. In fact we are talking about a consumer — somebody who has an interest as a consumer, not because he has been in the business. I think that it would be worthwhile putting it in the bill. There are five members. I don't see why it is not possible to put forward an amendment now to make it at least one member who is not connected with the security industry. It is a good move because we are constantly having problems. As I pointed out the other day, we are dealing here with people who do quasi-police work.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member has a copy of his amendment. Is it in writing, Mr. Member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's understanding, hon. Attorney-General, is that he hasn't moved it yet.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, but while he is talking I would like to read it.

MR. LEVI: I pointed out in second reading that there is very often a problem in respect to police matters or quasi-police matters. Non-police people are often kept out of some of the advisory councils or boards connected with police, I have in mind, for instance, CLEU, which I raised the other day. It is an excellent organization dealing with a very specific part of crime prevention. Originally that piece of legislation was seen as having a board composed of people who were not all police people. That was a kind of a first, really, in terms of writing it into legislation. Unfortunately, what has happened with CLEU is that the board membership has reverted back to only people who are policemen. It is important to have a non-police perspective.

In the same way, and connected with this particular section, it would be a good move on the part of the government to say in the act — if you designate not more than five members to the advisory board — that at least one of them should be a person who is not connected with nor has ever been connected with a security firm; in other words, a consumer who has a consumer's point of view only and not a corporate point of view or, if you like, a professional point of view. That is the purpose of the amendment, which I move.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that the Attorney-General is taking some time to consider it, and we hope he is prepared to do so favourably. I am glad to see the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and Mr. Roger there as well.

It is an amendment of some principle and some import. Basically it would require a level of public participation in the establishment of the code of ethics referred to in the bill, in the establishment of the new attitude and atmosphere that will be created by the passage of a bill which, as we have already indicated, will have the unanimous consent of the Legislature. The opposition doesn't always support government bills, but we certainly do on this occasion.

Our own Attorney-General, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), having commissioned the original report and the current Attorney-General having acted upon it, agree together — as we try to represent through this amendment today — that one of the important things in

[ Page 3690 ]

the public policy interest regarding private police forces, industrial security and the rest of it is the notion that the public will be represented at every level. The purpose of our amendment, which we hope passes, is to establish a uniquely public role for persons not directly or intimately involved with the industry in the setting of the standards, that code of ethics and the proper public expectation for the industry itself.

My colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam has put forward in language which we hope the government will find acceptable, in language which is very simple and straightforward, a commitment of principle. That commitment is this: it is in the interests of the good public administration of the policy that we see in this bill that the public be directly and personally represented in the councils of the private security industry of British Columbia. That's what my colleague hopes to achieve here. That's what we hope the government will accept.

It strikes us that it is in the best interest of the bill itself and of the people in this Legislature who will support it unanimously — that the public of British Columbia have confidence in its administration and execution. The commission, which this particular section 25 will establish, is one of the principal instruments whereby the good intentions of the bill are to be executed.

Again I refer to the fact that the commission named in this section, which we will support, has the authority and the mandate to establish a code of ethics for the private police and security industry in British Columbia. That's an important thing. Surely it's just as important that the people of British Columbia who are served by this industry have some direct and personal representation and say in the councils of those who will establish the code of ethics. After all, the code doesn't simply act as a self-governing mechanism for the industry; it should surely also act as the best statement of the public interest in the way that the industry conducts itself. That's important.

Do I see a signal from the government House Leader to conclude these remarks? Garde, yes, no?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm happy to fill a bit of air time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps a bit of formality still might be maintained, hon. members. The hon. member for Victoria still has the floor.

MR. BARBER: And concludes his possession of it by strongly endorsing the amendment put forward by my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam as thoughtful and helpful.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My colleague the Attorney-General is prepared to agree to the amendment, but I would really like to make a suggestion to the hon. member who is proposing the amendment and to all members of the opposition and of government. If you're proposing amendments to statute it is far better, much more appropriate, desirable, effective, efficient and all of those other kind of things, to please get them on the order paper so they may be considered by legislative draftsmen, legislative counsel and the Ministry of the Attorney-General to determine their appropriateness from not only a conceptual point of view, but from a point of view of precision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be too much to ask for the Chair to have the amendment? [Laughter]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'd be happy to give you the amendment. I second what has been said by my colleague the House Leader. As I indicated in second reading, I thought it was eminently desirable that this advisory board contain a person who is not associated with the business, in order that we might assist in the work of that advisory board. I've had the opportunity of speaking with legislative counsel, and if the member would like to follow the section, we've made one very slight modification in his motion which I'd like him to adopt, if he will. It's an amendment to section 25, line 3. The words in his motion are "by inserting after 'including' the following words: 'one member who is not connected with or has been a member of a security business.'" It then continues: "...the registrar, who shall act as chairman." I'm delighted to accept the amendment.

In line with the matters discussed during second reading it's clear that this is a new approach for the first time in this province. It may require further regulation of this industry in the future, and I think it eminently advisable if the Attorney-General could have all the qualified and competent advice that he can get — in no other cases, however, except this. So with that I'm happy to indicate that I support this amendment. I trust that, unless there are further amendments, the member would be prepared to grant leave that we proceed to third reading today.

Amendment approved.

On section 25 as amended.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to congratulate the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) for passing the amendment which now comprises the bulk of section 25. It's a good sign for this Legislature and I'm glad that's happened.

When I spoke on second reading I didn't have at hand a really unpleasant advertisement which I wish to draw to the Attorney-General's attention. When I spoke on second reading in regard to the necessity for a code of ethics which, self-governingly, will help the private police and security industry to earn a little more of the respect of the people, I talked about — and I recall him agreeing with — the notion that sometimes these companies engage in, to say the least, very high-pressure tactics to somewhat misleadingly direct the fears and the phobias that a lot of people, especially seniors, have. I didn't have at hand, but I do now, an advertisement from a company called Island Crime Watch Inc, crime prevention services, 383-3322, published in my riding. I don't have the date at hand either; I'll get it from the research office. Not only does it quote from the advertisements of McDonalds' — above a picture of a gentleman and an elderly lady the little phrase: "we do it all for you" appears — but it also manages to glom onto, in a completely misleading way, some of the latest jargon of the authentic police community in British Columbia. Underneath the picture of the gentleman and the elderly lady we're informed that "team policing really works." I resent the way in which this company has misappropriated the language and the ideas of the legitimate policing interests of British Columbia for its own commercial purposes, and I resent as well some of the

[ Page 3691 ]

language in this text, which if I have permission later on, I will table.

The text of the advertisement reads: "Inspector Garry Baker" — what he's an inspector of, I don't know, but the clear implication is that he is some kind of police inspector — "head of our community relations department, presents Miss Harriet Gibson with a lifetime membership to Island Crime Watch." It doesn't say what a lifetime membership means, either. "Miss Gibson has been a team supporter" — again the way in which that phrase is used and misused — "of Western Home Guard for the past 18 years and has never had a break-in. This is our way of saying 'thank you.' Business and home teams are winning." And then you see a picture of a criminal with a black mask and a heavy hat and his collar up, and underneath it says: "Security." And then in big type: "Security is a comfort to pensioners. Patrols are available for assistance. Don't leave your home without us." Then it repeats the phone number.

I think this is an advertisement which describes the worst — at least in print — of the things that can go wrong with an over-aggressive company attempting to oversell its product and attempting to, I think, misstate the nature of its actual role in the community. To describe what they do as "team policing" is to describe a false thing; that's absurd, that's got nothing to do with the currently acceptable definitions of "team policing," especially as has been pioneered to the great credit of Chief Constable Winterton and the police of Vancouver, and recently now to the Chief Constable of the city of Victoria, Mr. Snowdon.

To describe Mr. Garry Baker, who is the head of their community relations department, as an inspector is, I think, also to give a very false connotation to the actual role and traditional meaning of the word "inspector" in terms of policing. As well, to tell us that a Miss Gibson has been a team supporter for 18 years — whatever that means — and has never had a break-in is, once again, in a really misleading way, to paint a case for this company, its alleged product and its alleged role in the community, under whatever name they're using — Western Home Guard, Island Crime Watch or some other name in the past, I presume.

This is the kind of material which I hope the Attorney-General will be prepared to draw to the attention of the board that is established under this amended section. I hope he might agree with us that this kind of advertisement is the sort of thing that correctly does embarrass the industry, should not really be encouraged and should, in fact, with a code of ethics, not be seen much in the future.

I resent the ad. It exploits the fears and phobias of older people. I resent the use of terms, definitions and language in the ad, which clearly misrepresent the actual role of the company. As well, I resent the fact that this kind of overstatement of the company's case does great harm to the genuine abilities and genuine interests of the legitimate sections of the private policing and security industries in the province. This kind of advertising does their image a lot of harm and, for the sake of the industry as well as for the people in my riding and in other ridings who might feel a bit exploited and misinformed by this ad, I hope it doesn't occur again. In this way, I wanted to draw it to the attention of the Attorney-General.

MR. LEVI: I just want to thank the Attorney-General for accepting the amendment and point out that on this very quiet Friday morning something dramatic, in my opinion, has taken place, in that for the first time there will be a consumer representative on an advisory board. It's probably the first time. I know some years ago there was an attempt to get lay people on the stock exchange board, and I'm not sure if that has been as successful as it should have been. But in this one, this is the first time. Very often we hear from consumers' associations who are attempting to have consumer representation. Well, what we've got here, in fact, is the beginning of that. While I don't want to specifically refer to another piece of legislation or a bill that's before the House as a private member's bill, it is a beginning.

Non-professionals are going to have an opportunity we're not just talking about lawyers and doctors; I'm sure the security people see themselves as professionals in their field — to have an interested lay person who can give the all-important public point of view. I must congratulate the Attorney-General. It's a very good first in this province.

Section 25 as amended approved.

On section 26.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to refer to the comments by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), and draw to his attention that the regulation-making power vests in me the authority to make regulations respecting advertising by security businesses. I would also point out to him that, as he well knows, section 22 of the bill provides that: "No person engaged in a security business shall, to describe or identify his business or services, use the words 'detective,' 'law enforcement officer,' 'peace officer' or 'police,' either alone or in conjunction with their words." The member might be interested to know that, while this is a proclamation bill, it is my intention, following shortly after royal assent, to proclaim the provision which will establish the registrar and the regulation provisions.

The advertisement which he has provided me is one of a number of similar examples which are not perhaps what you would call misleading advertising, but they are so close to that, and so likely to carry the implication that someone is an inspector, that they could lead unsuspecting persons to believe the services offered were of a quality which they might otherwise question. We would be willing to look at it with care. We don't want to interfere with one's right to advertise. We certainly don't want to impose any unnecessary regulations upon the many people who show great responsibility in this business, but we want to ensure that the whole standard of the security business is elevated.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to make a comment on the particular subsection on guard dogs. I would sincerely ask the minister to make a study of the Vancouver police dog training school and the type of dog training that is given to the dogs they have in their school. What the dog is actually being used for in the security business is a gimmick, but a dog can be like a loaded rifle. If it's not trained properly, in the hands of an untrained person it can be a dangerous weapon. When the Vancouver police started their dog-training school, they started off with guard dogs or attack dogs. An attack dog is a dangerous weapon. They have since then changed their style of training. The dogs that they have trained are basically dogs that search and seek — dogs that will find someone in a building, no matter if it's a kid playing in a warehouse or a criminal. The dog is not trained to attack that person, but only to find him, seek him out and draw attention to him.

[ Page 3692 ]

I feel that any regulations that are designed for a civilian group should be based on the idea that you are training a dog to be an assistant — and extra eye and ear — but not to replace a gun or a club. That dog should be trained only to seek, search and locate people, and not ever be allowed to become a weapon to attack. I think it's really important in training dogs and setting up regulations that they go to the police academy in Vancouver, where they have an excellent dog-training school and an excellent record. They made mistakes when they started off and they're the first to admit it. That's why they changed their type of training. I'd ask the minister to take it under consideration when drawing up the regulations.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the question of the use of dogs is very properly raised by the member. He will note that there is a provision in this bill which prevents anyone who's licensed from carrying a firearm. I wish to assure him that I'm aware of the valuable work that is done by the Vancouver City Police Department in this respect. We don't want people who are in the security business being armed in any way, whether with a weapon in the normal sense of the word or with an animal whose training may not have been as carefully monitored as it should have been. Search and seek is what they're supposed to do, and I thank the member for his concerns. We will be relying heavily upon organizations such as the Vancouver City Police Dog Squad for their advice in matters of this kind.

MR. LEVI: Under subsection (4), I would like to ask the Attorney-General.... It says: "...may, for the purposes of this act, designate persons, who need not be public servants, as inspectors." What does he have in mind there? Is this to inspect the various agencies? Who would he actually hire? If you're looking at the industry itself — unless you're looking at the financial side and not so much the actual operation.... Who do you really have in mind there?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We see that there may be the need on some occasions, when you consider the powers of inspectors, to use members of some of our police forces in the course of the kind of work that we may require to be carried out in assisting the registrar.

MR. LEVI: The section says: "...who need not be public servants." Policemen are, presumably, public servants in that sense.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, I see, he's seeing it only in the provincial sense.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We are very strictly bound by the provisions of the Interpretation Act, and that's why we had to use this method, Mr. Member.

Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 38, Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 38, Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

BUSINESS LICENCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. MITCHELL: Well....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Frank, I know what you're going to say. Why don't you do it in 11?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I think I goofed. You might rule me out of order about now. I wanted to bring in an amendment to section 2 actually and it slipped by me before I got to it. It was my mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be out of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, I know we can't go back to a section which has been approved, but perhaps the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew could make his point under section 11, because it's a proclamation. I could respond at that time.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. The issue I wanted to bring up which slipped right by me, concerned a permit given by the provincial government in an unorganized area that is covered by the regional board and where they have had many zoning bylaws that have come in over the last few years under their community planning. Permits are given to people to conduct a business in an area that is not zoned for that particular business. It causes a lot of turmoil among the operators of the businesses, the community and the enforcement officers of the regional district.

[ Page 3693 ]

I was hoping that the minister would bring in an amendment to the bill that would cover this particular section that would at least have the particular officers who are issuing permits check with the various organized regional districts and their zoning bylaw officers to make sure that any permit given at least conforms with the area that is zoned for that particular business, or that the officers themselves are aware of the possibility of any conflict later on.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Thank you for your latitude, Mr. Chairman. I realize that the member made that point on July 29 in second reading. I have researched it since that time. The question of issuing a licence in conformity with zoning in a non-municipal area is a matter which the ministry can and — I undertake now before the committee — will handle administratively. It doesn't need an amendment. We can simply instruct those who are responsible for the issuance of licences that in the administrative process they determine the zoning which is in effect for the business which is proposed to be licensed. I give that undertaking to the committee.

MR. MITCHELL: On behalf of the many people in my regional district and my area who have asked for this, I thank the minister for that assurance.

Section 11 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 42, Business Licence Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 41.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 41, Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 41, Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

41 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 41) intituled Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act. 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 9 (2): By deleting "Section 3 (a) (i) and and (ii)" and substituting "Section 3 (a) (ii) and (iii)".