[ Page 7819 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Passarell –– 7822

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Howard –– 7822

Seizure of goods at Prince Rupert. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 7823

Mr. Howard

Horse-racing industry study. Mrs. Wallace –– 7823

Coal contract guidelines. Mr. Leggatt –– 7823

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 14). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7825

Mr. Leggatt –– 7825

Ms. Brown –– 7826

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7828

Special Appropriation Act (Bill 11). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7829

Mr. Stupich –– 7829

Mrs. Wallace –– 7830

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7830

Division –– 7831

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act (Bill 47). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7832

Mr. Hall –– 7832

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7832

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 28: minister's office –– 7833

Mr. Stupich

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Passarell

Mr. McDonald

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Lea

Ministerial statement re Quintette Mines project costs

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 7843

Mr. Howard

Seizure of goods at Prince Rupert, minister replies

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7843

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured today to introduce two outstanding citizens who are in our gallery. They represent so ably the senior citizen population of our province because they have been an inspiration and have worked so hard for that group of people. Will the House please welcome Mr. Chuck Bayley of 411 Senior Centre, and Mrs. Maureen Molaro, who represents Brock House.

MR. LEA: I'd ask the members to join me today in welcoming two visitors to the Legislature from the village of Massett in the Queen Charlotte Islands. We have the chief councillor for the Haida village of Massett with us, Mr. Cecil Brown, and an assistant who for a long time was the executive director of that band, Frank Collison.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The galleries today are occupied in part by about 18 grade 11 students from Claremont Senior Secondary School — the school on the hill in the Cordova Bay section of the great constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Would the House make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and I wish to ask the House to welcome a group of students from Britannia high school — another group today with their guide and teacher, Mr. Walker. Yes, the greatest high school in the world.

HON. MR. SMITH: Educational luminaries in the gallery today include the recently re-elected president of the B.C. School Trustees, Mr. Gary Begin and Mr. Henry Justesen, the principal and chief executive officer of PVI, and the bursar, Mr. Elwood Veitch. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my welcome to the Britannia high school students who are here today. As a former graduate of that school, may I pass this message on to them: if they don't behave themselves, they may end up in here.

MR. RICHMOND: In the precincts today — and later in the gallery — is a fine group of young people from Brocklehurst Junior Secondary School, along with their teacher Mr. Dodd and Mr. Johnson. I would like all the members to welcome them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Would the House please welcome 80 students from West Heights Elementary School in Mission, under the direction of their teacher Mr. Plowright.

MR. DAVIDSON: Later today we will have approximately 60 grade 10 students from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in Delta. With them is their teacher and alderman for Delta, Mr. Karl Moser. Mr. Moser is also the NDP candidate for Delta for the next provincial election. I'd ask the House to welcome them all.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from Hansard. They would like the spelling of the last name of the hon. member for Delta. [Laughter.]

MR. STUPICH: The passing of the former member for Nanaimo seems to have gone unnoticed in the chamber. Dr. Larry Giovando was the member for Nanaimo and the Islands. He was elected in 1952 and re-elected in 1953. He certainly served his constituency very well and was an extremely popular person in the community and in the House as well. Although he was a member of the Conservative Party at the time, he was a very strong proponent of medicare. In that, of course, he was supported by the party he defeated in the election. I would like the appropriate sentiments to be passed on to his widow and family.

MR. SPEAKER: Would that be the wish of the House? So ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we'd very much like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon. member and extend the greatest sympathy to all members of the family.

MR. SPEAKER: The appropriate message will be sent.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the Legislature to welcome my sister-in-law Anne Marie Ross, who is visiting from Ferndale with her class of grade 6 students. The school is located at Custer, Washington.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Earlier today, during committee, I referred to a document, a petition actually, which was signed by a number of people, including the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), but not the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). I would like at this time, the first opportunity, to table this document.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: I rise on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. SKELLY: This morning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) announced that he had in his possession a petition that was circulating in the East Kootenay area not too long ago, which asked that two projects, the Keenleyside Dam and the Murphy Creek Dam, be pushed ahead in order to create employment in that area. As we all know, the Keenleyside project is not one that is really contentious, politically or in terms of the social and environmental impacts, it is simply a case of putting generators in a dam. It is my understanding, though, after reading the preamble of this petition that the member attributed to a number of NDP Members of Parliament and to one NDP MLA, that absolutely no mention is made in that petition of the Murphy Creek project, which does have and does raise some environmental and social impact concerns in the area. So the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was not telling the truth when he indicated the contents of the petition. He was misleading the House.

[ Page 7820 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we cannot, even in stating a matter of privilege, use unparliamentary language either in phrase or in word. I would ask the hon. member to make sure that the language is parliamentary even in stating the matter of privilege.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am hearing a matter of privilege. Perhaps I could take the point of order following the matter. Would that be in order?

MR. LAUK: No, it has to do with the matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The member wishes to interrupt the member on the floor on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: I wish to respond to Mr. Speaker's direction to the member who is raising the question of privilege. If the question of privilege as it is states, as part of its substance, the question of whether or not a minister has misled the House, then the member has every right to state that as part of the question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps a more acceptable procedure would be that the motion that can be anticipated under a matter of privilege could perhaps be worded in a manner which would ask a committee to ascertain whether or not someone misled the House.

MR. SKELLY: I'll finish the matter briefly, Mr. Speaker. As you are no doubt aware, the eighteenth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice states on page 138 that the House may treat a misstatement as a contempt. I would therefore ask that you consider these documents I have to present, in order to determine if there is a prima facie case of contempt. If Mr. Speaker so determines, then I will file the appropriate motion. Mr. Speaker will be aware that since the document was only tabled in the House at this point, this is the earliest opportunity I have had to deal with the matter as a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: We will consider the matter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: I have to caution that there is no debate on the matter of privilege.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I understand that, Mr. Speaker.

I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that your deliberation on this matter could be helped if I had the opportunity to file further documents which I have in my possession, but to which I have not referred in the House. Perhaps you could advise me whether that's a proper procedure, because I have some other documents which refer to Murphy Creek, the unions in the area and that which I commented on earlier today.

MR. SPEAKER: If the member has other documents which he wishes to table, the House may grant leave for such tabling.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I was engaged in other parliamentary business this morning in the precincts and was not present when statements were made during, I believe, debate on the title of the B.C. Hydro bill. I note, however, that on page 933-2 of the Hansard Blues my name is mentioned as having been signatory to a petition which has just been tabled in the House. The statement in the Blues says that that petition was to push ahead the Keenleyside and Murphy Creek dams. I would hope that in reviewing the petition that's been filed, which I've just had the opportunity to recheck at the table, you would consider that page of the Blues in determining the prima facie case, as it does affect me as an hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is apparently something which happened in a committee which was not reported to Mr. Speaker. Of course, as a result, I have no knowledge of that.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, the Minister of Energy has been kind enough to offer to elaborate on the points in question. Perhaps, if the members opposite would wish that, the minister might be permitted to carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the basis upon which we listen to points of order is to draw to the attention of the Chair that indeed points of order do exist. As soon as the Chair is alerted to those, the Chair is of course at liberty to inquire into those points and will bring a decision — and will certainly bring a decision on the matter of privilege, which has caused all of this concern this afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and we move to this matter immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the matter which is for consideration now is the matter of privilege.

MR. BARRETT: I understand, Mr. Speaker. I make a request that the rules of the House be suspended and we proceed to this matter immediately here in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have not been able to determine whether or not the request itself is in order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave of the House that the rules be suspended and that we proceed to this matter immediately. If the House wishes to, it can. All the Speaker must do, in my opinion, is ask if leave is granted.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a difficulty which I draw to the member's attention, in that it must first be determined whether or not the matter is a matter of privilege.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking leave of the House that the rules be suspended, that the matter raised by the member be debated now — and that is not predetermined and I ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a severe difficulty in that the member is asking for a debate of a matter which itself has not been determined to be in order. But let the House speak for itself. Shall leave be granted?

[ Page 7821 ]

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review the matter and bring a decision to the House at the appropriate time.

MR. LAUK: I rise under standing order 49, Mr. Speaker, which states: "A motion may be made by unanimous consent of the House without previous notice...." I move, with the unanimous consent of the House, if given, the motion of privilege as put by the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, standing order 49 makes provision only when the order of business of motions and adjourned debate on motions is in progress, so I cannot entertain that particular motion at this time.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Introduction of bills.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, after having passed the introduction of bills, we now are, as my understanding is, under standing order 25, entitled to deal with motions and adjourned debate on motions. Pursuant to standing order 49, I request leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King), that this House is of the opinion that the failure of the Minister of Health to attend the federal-provincial Ministers of Health conference was a disservice to the interests of British Columbians.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, according to the order paper, motions and adjourned debate on motions will come a little later. We are now at that point called "Oral questions by members."

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the House on April 5 or on the end of the.... It said that items should be dealt with in a certain priority, the budget debate taking precedence over all other matters except introduction of bills. Once "Introduction of bills" was called, we were then able to return to motions and adjourned debate on motions, which is routine business under standing order 25. It was under that that I rose. We are now, I submit, on routine business, and I ask leave.... As I did, if the House desires to give leave, then I think Your Honour should put it. I ask leave under standing order 49 to move the particular motion that I read to you, following Your Honour's own advice some time ago that it was attendant upon the individual seeking to move a motion to identify what the motion was so that the House would be apprised of its content and thus be in a position to give leave or not to give leave. I ask that leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. There is a misunderstanding in the member's mind about the orders of the day as they appear before us. We know that we have a precedence motion which was moved on opening day. That motion gives precedence to Committee of Supply, and should have precedence over all other things except the introduction of bills. That is the reason why, from the table, we have the call "Introduction of bills." Following that, the other precedents come into effect. One of those precedents is given to oral questions by members. Hon. member, that's where we are at this juncture.

MR. HOWARD: Still? The Leader of the Opposition just dealt with a subject that was under Your Honour's authority, and Your Honour put that to the House as to whether leave should be granted to move a particular motion. I am just asking for similar treatment. I ask leave under standing order 49 to move the motion that this House is of the opinion that the failure of the Minister of Health to attend the federal-provincial Ministers of Health conference was a disservice to the interests of British Columbians. I would ask leave to do that, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that it might be in the interests of all concerned if Your Honour would take the course of asking if leave is available.

MR. SPEAKER: The reason for the possibility of leave even being asked for was that under a matter of privilege.... A matter of privilege can be raised, according to the standing orders, at any time. Therefore, that matter of privilege having been identified, it was possible to ask leave. However, what the member is now asking is for leave on a matter which does not fall under the regular orders of the day, but is pre-empted by precedence motions on which this House has already spoken. I'm sure that at the appropriate time the hon. member would be able to raise his question.

MR. HOWARD: To me, the appropriate time seems to be under routine business. Originally, with respect to the question of privilege, Your Honour was not disposed to test the House, and eventually, upon persistent requests, Your Honour did say yes, you'd test the House, even though it was contrary to Your Honour's own opinion that you should not test the House. I'm just asking for a similar sort of treatment.

The Premier just nodded in my direction, indicating it's okay with him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the reason why the standing orders are printed in explicit form is that situations such as we are experiencing now can be avoided. A further complication is brought up by the fact that the member cannot even gain the floor under standing order 49. He gains the floor under a point of order, and therefore he does not even have possession of the floor during which he could move a motion — the motion which he intends to move. So, hon. member, I commend to you the standing orders of the House, which indeed you have placed in my hands, and I commend to you adherence to those standing orders. Perhaps at the appropriate time the member can gain the floor and be heard.

MR. HOWARD: I now have two reasons to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I so do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged, and we must deal with that first.

The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 7822 ]

NAYS — 25

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

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, it is conceivable that a question like this, should the members be able to obtain the floor legitimately, might be put, without preparation, to members on this side. Just as a point of advice from the opposite side with respect to what should be a substantive motion criticizing the Minister of Health, I didn't hear from the members opposite who the NDP pair would have been for the member. So it was difficult for me to tell, if we were going to debate it, whether this was an honest move on the part of the opposition or an attempt to trap the government. There were no golfers....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The question of pairing does not fall under the responsibility of the Chair.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Oral Questions

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was concerned that the surveys and mapping branch has had its photographic aircraft confiscated for executive use. What alternative arrangements has the minister made to complete the vital mapping work for this year?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't believe that "confiscation" is the correct word, and the program is not just vital for this year; it is for a 15-year period. At this time no alternative arrangements have been made.

MR. PASSARELL: No alternative arrangements? All right.

I have another question. Can the minister give his assurance that the air-mapping program will not suffer this year on account of the decision to divert government photography aircraft to ferrying Socred politicians and their staff between Victoria and Vancouver?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think I can give the member assurance that the program has been accelerated over past years. It is now in better condition than it was some three years ago, before cabinet decided to accelerate our base mapping program.

MR. PASSARELL: The minister knows that the alternatives to using the Beechcraft 200 will cost taxpayers more. Can the minister confirm that some of the contracts already signed with private companies to do the work of the surveys and mapping branch are for up to four times the cost of doing the work in-house?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The preamble was incorrect, and what he's asking me to affirm to the House is also incorrect.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. HOWARD: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: did the minister, on the evening of February 20, 1981, host a dinner party at Umberto's for six persons, at a cost to the taxpayers of $375?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: As I indicated yesterday to another member opposite, my comments, which are clearly on public record on that matter, have been that following the release of the report to the public by the auditor-general into that matter, I should be happy to provide comment.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask the minister a further question and inquire if the cost of that particular dinner party included a bar bill of $184.08, part of which was for four bottles of Pouilly-Fuisse imported French wine at $37.50 a bottle.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Again, I would take the question as notice and refer members opposite to my previous answer today and to my answer yesterday on the same topic.

MR. HOWARD: I have another question then. I would ask the minister if included among the guests at that evening dinner party were Mr. and Mrs. P. Lind of Ontario, friends of the minister.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Again, I'm happy to comment on that question following release of the report of the auditor-general.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask a further question, the subject matter of which I gather is not involved in the auditor-general's examination. I ask the minister whether Mr. and Mrs. Lind were personal house guests of the minister at the time of that dinner party.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I do not presume to prejudge what will be in the report of the auditor-general. I should be happy to deal with that question following release of that report.

[ Page 7823 ]

SEIZURE OF GOODS AT PRINCE RUPERT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question posed yesterday by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The question dealt with the matter of liquor that was seized at Prince Rupert. I would advise the member that the inquiry discloses that the liquor had as its destination an Indian reserve, the members of which had by referendum declared that the reserve would be dry. Liquor is not permitted to be landed at such reserves.

MR. HOWARD. I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that that in fact was the case with all those seizures? There was more than one village involved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the information I have just given to the House came from the RCMP superintendent who had responsibility for this matter.

HORSE-RACING INDUSTRY STUDY

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Attorney-General. In April of this year the Attorney-General stated he would not release the study on the horse-racing industry in British Columbia because more work was needed on the study and there were more legislative changes in the works. Can the Attorney-General advise us who is conducting the work to complete the study and the nature of the work underway?

MR. SPEAKER: The portion concerning the work is in order; the portion concerning legislation would not be in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member's statement is incomplete regarding the reasons for the non-release of the report; what she stated is part of the reason. The work being done with respect to that aspect of the report is still under consideration. It is being done by members of the ministry who are concerned with Criminal Code enforcement.

MRS. WALLACE: Given that the legislation concerning the horse-racing industry has already been passed during the course of this study, has the Attorney-General decided to table it in this Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should reconsider the question. The answer to that is no, because of the reasons I've previously stated on this occasion.

COAL CONTRACT GUIDELINES

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. The stage two Quintette submissions to the coal guideline steering committee, which dealt with hiring and purchasing policy, set out that preference would be given to "domestic suppliers, taking into account they are competitive." That's a direct quote from the stage two submission. Could the minister advise the House why there is no provision between B.C. and Quintette Mines requiring the company to give contracts and equipment orders to B.C. or Canadian businesses able and willing to do the job? In other words, why was there no right of first refusal put in the agreements with the coal companies?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I'll certainly check into the situation, but as usual he's probably wrong, as he was when he stated that Quintette Coal had let a contract to a French firm for $45 million. The contract had not been let, and if it is let to the French firm, only about $4 million of that $45 million will go to the French for expertise and engineering. The other $40 million will remain in British Columbia for other goods and services.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, not only was I right, but the major part of that contract for technical engineering is going abroad, and that's exactly the point we're making in this House. Those contracts should go here, not to France.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate in question period is out of order.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. In the stage two submissions of Quintette, which the minister is familiar with — if he's not, he can look at page 68 — it shows that a billion dollars will be spent outside of Canada and a further $2.25 billion are going to be spent in Canada but outside of British Columbia. That's a third of the project cost that's going outside of B.C. Did the representatives of Denison threaten to withdraw unless they had this privilege of contracting abroad, and why didn't the minister provide some guarantees to B.C. workers and B.C. business to get a fair share of that coal deal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have to listen in amazement to that member, because he's gone around maliciously and ill-advisedly trying to mislead the people of this province...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett)...

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...saying that there had been billions and billions of dollars of contracts let outside of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform him....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. If the member has suggested that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has misled, then I would ask the hon. member to....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll....

MR. SPEAKER: The member withdraws.

The answer to the question is...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to state that of the $440 million worth of contracts that have been let on northeast coal so far, approximately 85 percent have been let in British Columbia, providing jobs for British Columbians. I'd like to further inform the member that there are some goods and services on a project of this size that are unavailable in the province of British Columbia, the same as on any other major

[ Page 7824 ]

project that's ever proceeded in this province. We don't have all of the expertise in the world. Those goods and services — 90 or 100 percent of them that are going to be provided to that project — are unavailable, or will be unavailable, in the province of British Columbia.

I also want to say that I'm not, nor are we in British Columbia, against providing jobs for other Canadians. There will be some materials and some supplies that will have to be let outside the province. I want to inform the House that 50 percent of the jobs in British Columbia depend on exports. Indeed, if we want to export our goods and services from the province of British Columbia so that people can be gainfully employed, time and time again we will have to buy something from outside countries, just as numerous people in British Columbia buy television sets or automobiles because that's their preference. In this case, it is simply because they are not available in the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: That might be logical if it weren't that the taxpayers and business people are subsidizing that project and should be guaranteed those jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: No debate.

MR. LEGGATT: My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Page 68 of the stage 2 report, the Quintette report, uses these words: "Best efforts will be used in hiring native people." No mention is made with regard to any affirmative action program for native people. There are no percentages or numbers referred to for hiring native people. No mention whatsoever is made with regard to hiring women for this project. How many native people are now employed? How many women have been employed? How many local people are now employed? And why are there no guarantees provided in a stage 2 proposal — for that matter in the master agreement — guaranteeing an affirmative employment program for local people, for native people and for women?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If the union bosses that that party happens to be in bed with would change their policies and open local hiring halls in the Peace River area, where the project is being undertaken, maybe some of the local people up there would be able to get jobs. I would like to inform the member that at the present time about 85 percent of the people employed in non-union jobs up there are local people. I would also like to inform the member that through the northeast coal office we even bent the rules to ensure that native people would be getting a job. There is one native contractor up there who has received jobs on the B.C. Hydro line and on the British Columbia Railway line and is doing very well, thank you.

I want to tell you that this job is being done as a cooperative venture, and we are not going to tell the coal companies how to run their businesses. As soon as we do that, if there are cost overruns, they will come back to us and tell us, as a government, that we have forced these cost overruns, and they will look for concessions. This deal has been put together on a businesslike basis. It is not only good for Canada; it is good for the workers of British Columbia. Some of the union bosses and some of the NDP who are continually harping at a project that is going to employ 10 percent of the construction force in British Columbia this year had better take heed that their harping, negative criticism is not being accepted by the people of British Columbia, who understand that this project is good not only for the short-term but also for the long-term economy of British Columbia.

I would like to inform all the members opposite and all the people of British Columbia that that member over there and his boss, the leader of the opposition party, continually go around this province saying that the taxpayers of British Columbia are subsidizing northeast coal, when there is an independent report, put out by Price Waterhouse, which contradicts that and says that the taxpayers of British Columbia, over the life of these first two contracts, will receive benefits in excess of $5.5 billion. I want to tell you that I just hope that that Negative Nelly group over there continues to do its negative criticism of northeast coal, because the people and the workers of British Columbia are not buying it.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I understand it is a ruling of previous Speakers that documents referred to by a minister are thereupon required to be tabled by that minister. I've asked the minister to follow through with the requirement, when referring to a document, to table such documents in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The rule on tabling has been referred to on many occasions in this House.

MRS. WALLACE: I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave to move adjournment of the House to debate a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MRS. WALLACE: It is of utmost concern to my constituency and my colleagues that this government has imposed a deterrent fee against people attempting to appeal permits for the spraying of pesticides and herbicides. Companies seeking to spray these chemicals apply for several permits, each covering a relatively small area. Anyone who fears the use of pesticides or herbicides is forced to appeal each permit separately, paying a $25 fee for each permit. This means that many people will simply not be able to afford to exercise their right to appeal the use of chemical spray.

This is an urgent matter, as many citizens oppose the use of questionable chemicals for weed control when safer methods could be used without creating a hazard to residents who live and take their water adjacent to the spraying area. The fact is that now citizens will effectively be deprived of their means to halt this practice because of the cost involved. The companies requesting permission to spray these chemicals are not charged any fee for their permit application.

The present policy not only makes it costly to appeal, but also is inequitable. In view of this fact, and that the spraying season is now upon us, it is a matter of immediate concern. I have a motion to make which would enable us to debate that particular matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. If we can determine whether or not a prima facie case does exist, then that motion would be called for.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

MR. HOWARD: Did I understand the minister to ask leave to do something?

[ Page 7825 ]

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, rising to move second reading of this bill, I'd like to advise you and members of the House that the bill contains, in effect, three elements of some considerable significance in the matter of family law in this province.

The first element to which I direct the members' attention is the provision of the legislation which implements The Hague Convention on civil aspects of international child abduction. By way of background, I should indicate that this convention was adopted on October 25, 1980, at a conference in The Hague. The adoption of the convention was a result of two years of negotiations at the international level. I would like to pay specific tribute to the Attorney-General of Ontario and his then Deputy Attorney-General, Allan Leal, who on behalf of Canada and the provinces of Canada took a leading role in those negotiations.

The signatories to the convention during the conference expressed their conviction that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody. The principle is reflected in the convention. It is also consistent with the principles which underly the extraprovincial custody and access provisions of British Columbia's Family Relations Act.

In order to ensure the prompt return of children who have wrongfully been removed from one contracting state to another, and to ensure that rights of custody and access are effectively respected in the other contracting state, the convention recommended that the contracting states designate a central authority responsible for the discharging of duties imposed by that convention. The legislation in British Columbia, as in Ontario, designates the Attorney-General as the central authority responsible for those duties. The duties include the responsibility to determine the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or detained in a contracting state and, if necessary, to ensure that no harm befalls that child and that the child is not removed from that jurisdiction.

There is also the responsibility to secure, by amicable resolution if possible, the voluntary return of the child and, where necessary, to facilitate through judicial or administrative proceedings the resolution of issues where voluntary resolution is not possible. There is also the responsibility to provide all administrative arrangements required to ensure the safe return of the child in accordance with the order dealing with the matter of custody, and throughout the course of the discharge of such responsibility to keep the central authorities and other contracting states informed.

The convention will apply in respect of a child who, immediately before a breach of a custody or access order, was habitually resident in a contracting state. The convention was signed by 40 countries. As of this moment no country has yet ratified the convention. Canada is obliged to ratify the convention at the request of any province. It is a necessary prerequisite to making that request of the government of Canada that the legislation in the form of the convention be passed. I am advised that this month the province of Ontario will pass its legislation. British Columbia, being the second of the provinces to introduce legislation of this kind, will be joining the province of Ontario in requesting the government of Canada to ratify the convention. We will then be in a position to deal with matters of custody and access in the international sphere arising in this province with respect to children who are habitually resident in other contracting states. Likewise, if any child, in respect of whom a custody or access order has been made in this province, has been abducted to another contracting state, it will ensure that we will be able to have that child properly, returned and dealt with in accordance with the rules of our court.

The number of cases which might be involved is difficult at this moment to estimate. The Department of External Affairs of the federal government advise us that their records indicate that some 130 cases have presently come to their attention in Canada. Whether the scope will be larger than that we cannot tell, but we think it is absolutely essential that British Columbia be in a position to discharge its responsibility in this field.

I am advised that other provinces are in the process of drafting necessary legislation and will be following, in short order, with legislation which will ensure that all of Canada will be abiding by the rules of the international convention.

The second element in the bill deals with reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between provinces in Canada. In this province we already have a system for reciprocal enforcement of the procedural requirements which are set out in regulations made pursuant to this legislation. A recent decision in the Provincial Court of British Columbia has ruled that those regulations are not an effective way of dealing with reciprocal problems, but that they should be spelled out in the statute. This is a challengeable decision of the provincial court, but we have decided, rather than take the time and suffer the delays necessary in proceeding with an appeal, to deal with the matter directly by incorporating the provisions which are now set out in the regulations in the statute itself. There are no substantive changes in those regulations, but with the passage of this bill we will have the adequacy of the statutory basis which the courts found wanting in our legislation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A court; a decision of a judge of the provincial court.

The third element deals with the nature of information which must be disclosed during maintenance order enforcement proceedings. There is an amendment which will require financial disclosure of spouses and parents of children in the course of enforcement proceedings for maintenance orders. Financial disclosure is currently required with respect to the making of the maintenance order or in application for the variation of a maintenance order. We deem it to be an omission from the legislation not to ensure that financial disclosure is also available with respect to enforcement matters. In our view this will save much time and make the maintenance order enforcement process in this province much more effective and efficient than has been the case in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. LEGGATT: I might say, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General that we welcome this legislation. It's most

[ Page 7826 ]

useful that the convention is moving forward. I don't know whether he'll request ratification from Canada, but I'm assuming from his remarks that he intends to immediately request the Canadian government to ratify the convention after the passage of this bill. In doing so I hope that he will put a burr under External Affairs at the same time and get them working to get other countries to ratify the convention. The key problem won't be here in Canada; the key problem will be in countries that do not ratify the convention and leave us in the same helpless position that we have been in with regard to this awesome problem of the kidnapping of children across international borders. It's a severe problem; it's an international problem; it affects families and children in a disastrous way. I'm pleased to see the Attorney-General is bringing the legislation forward, and certainly we on this side of the House do not intend to delay its passage.

We also welcome the improvement to the disclosure — provision with regard to enforcement. There's a good deal of mythology out there about why people don't pay their maintenance orders. For a long time we have tried not to put people into jail for failing to pay their bills. It is hard to collect money, whether it's for maintenance or any other debt. Most lawyers will tell you that their experience is that if a person deliberately tries to duck their obligations, they can quite often be successful. It's extremely difficult to pin them down in terms of whether they have the capacity to pay. The only jail provision is that there has to be a contempt of the order. This at least will strengthen the hand of the sitting judge with regard to enforcement. There is now mandatory requirement for disclosure so the judge can see whether the person who has the obligation to pay maintenance is in contempt of the order.

I hope and trust that the Attorney-General will move quickly to obtain Canadian ratification and also ratification abroad.

MS. BROWN: I too am very pleased about the decision to endorse the Hague Convention. I only wish that we had strong legislation to deal with the kidnapping of children across borders inside of Canada. We certainly need to do something for the large number of families who are fighting over their kids on this business of kidnapping. It goes unchecked between Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia and other provinces, especially since the Attorney-General's ministry has recently introduced, through his infamous memorandum of April 23, the decision not to permit legal counsel to families involved in those instances. If he's looking for the particular section, it's the April 23 memorandum, Mr. Speaker, which referred to representation of applicants in custody, access, maintenance and related matters. It used to be without limitations; it has now been changed, as in column 2, to representation of only those applicants who have de facto custody of their children, and where physical violence is involved in the families. Certainly the decision to curtail the legal services to families, not taking into account either the kidnapping of children across borders within Canada or emotional abuse, was a serious one.

There is a second thing I want to talk about with regard to this legislation. I'm really quite puzzled. Legislation like this is coming down, and it is good, strong legislation. At the same time the minister, through Mr. John Morton, the director of the family law section in his department, issued something like five memoranda and two additional pieces of information to lawyers who deal with people on limited income and serve as advocates in the courts information to do with the Family Relations Act, curtailing the amount and quality of time that can be spent with them.

Speaking to the principle of the bill, the United Way did a study in April 1981, and found that single-parent families primarily headed by females were the ones with the most problems in terms of having maintenance payments made on time. Their other horrendous statistic is that something like 20,000 such families are presently in receipt of social assistance, which means that if maintenance were enforced, we could eliminate almost half of the families presently on income assistance. The statistics for income assistance show that the largest component of people on income assistance comprises children of single parents and the single parents themselves, so if maintenance were enforced, we could wipe out half of the income assistance roll.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right, except that on April 23 the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), through Mr. Morton, issued this absolute bevy of memoranda. As I mentioned earlier, the things it says, in changing the representation of applicants in the courts, is that the applicant has to have de facto custody of the children and there has to be violence within the family. In section 3 it says that even if an applicant is eligible under the above conditions, legal services are not to be given for enforcement, variation, ratification or rectification of an original order. So even when the single parent has de facto custody of the child, and even when there is violence within the family, which means she is therefore eligible for legal representation through the Attorney-General's department, it doesn't apply. According to section 3 of one of the five memoranda and seven pieces of paper issued by the Attorney-General's ministry on April 23, it doesn't apply.

So I am quite confused about precisely how this bill is going to be implemented. How is it going to be enforced once it becomes law if the A-G's ministry is cutting back? It states quite clearly here that this is based on financial decisions to stay within the budget. To use the exact wording, they would like to provide service within the funding levels established. In order to do that, he is very clearly wiping out that section of the service delivered to people on income assistance which would make it possible for the maintenance to be enforced and for these 20,000 families — the number is probably higher than that now, because this study was done in April 1981 — to get off income assistance.

The other thing this study pointed out, and I don't know whether or not the minister took it into account, is that the majority of maintenance orders were for sums of $200 or less. There isn't any point in having the Attorney-General say that these families can hire themselves a lawyer to deal with the enforcement of maintenance. If you're dealing with arrears of, say, three months involving something in the nature of $600, it's not possible to go out and hire yourself a lawyer; it's just not worth it. The majority of the people using the legal representation supplied through the Attorney-General's ministry were people with these orders of $200 a month or less and are people who, as a result of the maintenance falling into arrears or not being paid at all, end up on the income assistance rolls — the 20,000 families that the United Way told us about and their children.

[ Page 7827 ]

Mr. Speaker, the report brought down some very good recommendations which I had hoped the legislation would have dealt with. But I will go on to the recommendations afterwards. Maybe the Attorney-General can explain how it is going to be possible for a number of these single parents to deal with the complexities of the court system without benefit of legal counsel. How are they supposed to do it? Because legal aid doesn't deal with that; they do not have this service under the legal aid system. Now that it's been withdrawn as a result of this memo — to take effect, I gather, on June 1 — how are these single parents, most of whom have no legal training or no experience in the courts, going to deal with the complexities of the court system?

The other thing in this legislation is that section 16 of the GAIN act, which deals with the enforcement.... Incidentally, it's been in the act since 1979, but it has never been proclaimed.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good section.

MS. BROWN: A good section, but it has never been proclaimed. That section is now repealed and reappears under the Family Relations Act. How is it going to be enforced? How is Human Resources going to use the courts if the Attorney-General's ministry is curtailing legal counsel to these people? How are they going to benefit? Why did the Attorney-General insist on taking this away from Human Resources, or why did Human Resources give this up to the Attorney-General's ministry, knowing full well that the Attorney-General's ministry is in a period of cutting the services which they are giving to people?

The other question has to do with the Child Paternity and Support Act, which is being amended. Mr. Speaker, maybe the Attorney-General can explain to me where it says, "...striking out '70' and substituting '69'..." because I have the act in front of me and section 12(2) reads, "The provisions of the Family Relations Act for the enforcement of maintenance orders apply to the enforcement of maintenance provisions in an affiliation order," and there is nothing in there about section 70 or section 69. So I'm asking this, because I would like a clarification; it's not a contentious question.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how the Ministry of Human Resources is going to be able to deal with the enforcement of this section now that the lawyers under contract to the Attorney-General, who are supposed to act to apply orders and to enforce, are being withdrawn. That's been restricted, and as a matter of fact a number of them are not having their contracts renegotiated, but have been given three months' notice of it. Are these people supposed to depend on the family court counsellors? The family court counsellors are not legally trained. They are very useful, I think, in the counselling that they do. But if one is looking at the quality of justice, which is supposed to be available to all people regardless of their economic status, one would have to question whether it is going to be possible, now that this section is taken out of the GAIN act, is being repealed and placed under the Family Relations Act. How is it going to be possible now that the memorandum has come out and made clear that enforcement of maintenance is not one of the things for which legal counsel is going to be available?

One of the other memoranda — and as I said before, there are about seven in all — which deals with services to children is withholding legal counsel for children over the age of 12. Well, a number of these maintenance orders are on behalf of children, and until this date family advocates did act on behalf of children through the courts. Now this service is going to be eliminated once the child is over the age of 12. Maybe the Attorney-General can explain to me how that is going to be possible with this curtailment. I want to be absolutely clear that the minister knows what particular sections I'm dealing with.

In a memo dated April 23 to the family advocate services, section 10(a) says that no appointments will be made in matters respecting the interests and welfare of a child 12 years of age or over. Surely maintenance affects the interests and welfare of a child. I'm still curious about where that decision to cut off at the age of 12 came from. What studies or research went into the decision that a 12-year-old no longer needs the protection of an advocate in the courts. As I pointed out at another time — it has nothing to do with this bill — we know that most of the children over the age of 12 who end up in court using an advocate are victims of sexual abuse. But I'm not discussing that under this bill, Mr. Speaker. That's another matter altogether. I'm discussing the welfare of the children under the bill. They too, as a result of this memo, are going to find that they're not going to have access to an advocate.

The memo which I mentioned earlier, also dated April 23, dealing specifically with the Family Relations Act, makes it absolutely clear that, whereas in the past representation of applicants in custody, access, maintenance and related matters, and for injunctive relief in the supreme court, were all without limitation as to the extent of service and the nature of the case in provincial court, that has now been changed. The first criterion for eligibility is that the applicant has to have de facto custody of the child. In other words, in an instance where a child has been kidnapped and taken to another province by one of the parents, the spouse will not have representation made available through the ministry, because the spouse does not have de facto custody of the child. The second criterion is that, as well as de facto custody of the children, there has to be the presence of physical violence or the apprehension of imminent physical violence — there has to be a threat — in order for this person to be eligible. Even when both of these criteria have been met — when there is either de facto custody or physical violence or the threat of violence — it very clearly says: "If an applicant is eligible under the above conditions, then counsel may represent the applicant until a settlement is made. However, legal services are not to be given for enforcement...." That is what we're talking about. We're talking about enforcing the maintenance orders. At this point, a single parent — of which we've been told by the United Way study there are at least 20,000 in receipt of income assistance, to say nothing of the ones who are not in receipt of income assistance — with de facto custody of a child, where there is violence or the threat of violence, is not going to have legal counsel in terms of going before a provincial court to have the maintenance order enforced.

Why bring in the legislation if this service is going to be cut off? It doesn't make any sense. It's one step forward and five steps back. When the legislation was introduced, everyone thought that meant the welfare rolls were going to be absolutely diminished — cut in half — because as soon as there was a maintenance order, the Ministry of the Attorney-General was going to see to it, through the Family Relations Act, that the maintenance was paid through garnisheeing the

[ Page 7828 ]

wages of the spouse who was reneging or whatever. They thought everything was going to be taken care of. At exactly the same time, a sheaf of memos went out to all counsel who customarily act on the instructions of the family law and social services section in matters referred to it under the Family Relations Act. That's the very same act. All the counsel were told that they cannot act in cases of enforcement of maintenance. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

In closing, I just want to deal with some of the recommendations which were brought....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I do not understand why that is such a wonderful thing. It seems to me that you should have been as concerned about this as anyone else. If we want people to get off the welfare rolls.... We know that one of the reasons they are on the welfare rolls is because men are not paying their maintenance. That is why the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for it.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down and let us pass the bill!

MS. BROWN: It is not going to happen, because the Attorney-General said in one of his memos that those women are not going to have legal counsel. You should be standing up and fighting for that yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will be assisted if the member continues to address the Chair. Let's not have interruptions, please.

MS. BROWN: The United Way, in this study which I hope the Attorney-General has read, made a number of recommendations. One of the recommendations was that, first of all, all support orders should be made automatically payable through the courts and that there should be automatic monitoring as far as the enforcement is concerned. I just wonder if the Attorney-General took that recommendation into account. I don't think it's too late. It is still possible for that to be done. I know the bill says that once it's been signed over that can be done, but why not amend the legislation so as to make maintenance orders, child support orders — all orders — payable through the courts and have the automatic monitoring as far as the enforcement is concerned?

One of the problems the study found that we have with arrears is that even when the spouse who has not been paying the maintenance is brought before the courts, usually there is a settlement for a very small portion of what is owed. In other words, if a person is in arrears for $600, usually there is a settlement of about $200. It is never the entire amount that is paid up, because sometimes there is a valid reason why the person is in arrears. There are a number of reasons. The person has gone on to start a new family and has new responsibilities and so is not able to maintain the responsibilities to the old family, or has lost a job or whatever. There are a number of reasons given. Because there is no monitoring of the enforcement, they are allowed to fall so far behind that by the time they do get to court there is a negotiated settlement which is usually a very small proportion of what the order should be.

I would like to suggest to the Attorney-General that maybe, if it is possible to amend the legislation, that would be one thing that should be done. The other thing is the standardization of information dossiers and orders in terms of reciprocal jurisdictions. I think this is a good one that should be incorporated in the legislation.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is no longer in the chamber, but I would like to respond to a very worthwhile point that he made. It is the question of ratification of the Hague Convention in the other contracting states. That certainly is essential if the concepts which are contained in the convention are to be workable. That is the reason that we are so anxious to proceed with this legislation, so that we can — with the province of Ontario — make a direct request to the government of Canada for ratification in this country. That will then be possible with legislation in place in two jurisdictions in the country. Canada having ratified the convention we can then insist that Canada deal with the other contracting states, asking them to follow and do likewise. That will be a step taken immediately when this bill is enacted and receives royal assent.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds raised a number of matters, some of them within the principle of this bill, some of them not. May I say with regard to the matter of abduction within Canada that the provisions of sections 37 through 42 of our Family Relations Act already deal with that aspect.

She has raised the question of the repeal of section 16 of the GAIN act, that section never having been proclaimed, and the transfer of it to the Family Relations Act. The reason that was done is that the section in the GAIN act was found to be inadequate for its purpose. That was the reason it wasn't proclaimed. We have rectified that and have put it into the Family Relations Act so that it will be effective.

The matter of maintenance enforcement is, as the member has pointed out, a very serious problem. It always seems as if the answers are simple until you begin to approach the practicalities which are associated with enforcement. One of our difficulties in this regard stems from the fact that in the years 1972 to 1975, when the NDP was government, they wiped out all process for the enforcement of maintenance orders. As a consequence, the system both within the province and between provinces was so completely confused and muddled that we're having some difficulties now in dealing with the matter of maintenance enforcement in the courts and the question of arrears.

She refers to the study done by the United Way, and the recommendations are good. Some of them have already been undertaken. We have had three pilot projects with regard to automatic enforcement procedures in this province, and they prove it is the way to go. But the numbers which are involved are such that in order to have effective monitoring of maintenance orders in the province, we will have to move to a computer system, the cost of which has now been estimated. We will be proceeding as quickly as we are financially able to install a system which will identify all arrears of maintenance orders immediately because the payments will go through the court, as the member has indicated the recommendations provide. Therefore enforcement will also be immediate.

[ Page 7829 ]

That program is now being developed jointly by the Ministry of Attorney-General and the Ministry of Human Resources. One of the major groups who would benefit by such a program is, as the member has pointed out, persons who find themselves on the social welfare rolls.

The member will note that in this legislation there is a provision whereby people can assign to the Crown their rights with respect to maintenance. It is because of reluctance on the part of many persons who rely upon social assistance to get orders at all. Therefore we find that of the social assistance recipients who are entitled to orders against their spouses for maintenance and are not getting them, the Crown is now going to say to them: "Would you please assign to us your rights with regard to maintenance? We will get the orders and we will enforce them and we'll look after the variation." Hopefully, we'll remove from those persons — almost all women with children, single-parent families — the hassle that they have to get involved with when they get into the courts. We will have to assume the responsibility for costs of that. That's the way the program is developing. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and I hope to announce later this year the commencement of that program. It doesn't need legislation. At least that is not with the advice that we have at the moment. It doesn't need legislation to become effective, and we are as anxious as the member is to provide levels of assistance in this particular area.

The member has raised questions with regard to memoranda being sent out by the ministry dealing with legal costs. That isn't covered by the bill; it's out of order. I will simply say, as I have said before, that those memoranda are designed to bring about an element of management and discipline with regard to the alarming increase in the cost of family law. The results of our analysis of the costing problems providing lawyers for a number of areas in family law continues, and those guidelines which have been issued are always subject to modification based upon experience.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 14.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 14 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL APPROPRIATION ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to Bill 11, in moving second reading I have a few remarks for the assistance of hon. members. Over the past 15 years the Legislature has created a number of special purpose funds to finance a wide variety of government programs and projects. These funds have generally served their intended purposes very well. Under present world economic circumstances — and we have spoken of those on a number of occasions on both sides of the House, as they affect British Columbia — it appears to the government that these funds would better meet the overall objectives of financial planning, management and control as special accounts within the general fund. As a result, Bill 11 proposes that almost all special purpose funds be dissolved and replaced by statutory spending authority from the general fund.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that it is not the intention of the policy introduced by the government in this bill to dilute in any way the programs now financed by special funds. This bill will provide all such programs with identical spending authority to that now contained within the legislation providing for special purpose funds. The change in policy, however, is consistent with the government's new accounting policy, which has been undertaken in recent months. It will also provide greater flexibility in financial management.

Following the conversion of special purpose funds into special purpose accounts, it will be possible for the government to draw on the surplus cash assets of these funds to finance special program initiatives this year. Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that the budget plan calls for spending $285.7 million on employment development and on health and education cost-stabilization programs. These initiatives are to be financed by cash from the new special accounts — that is, $270.7 million — and by the special bank tax, which is the subject of another bill, in an amount of about $15 million. Therefore this policy is fundamental to this year's budget plan.

I also want to stress, however, that five funds will remain and one new fund will be created. Actually, Mr. Speaker, there are six funds to be retained as a result of an amendment which will be dealt with in committee. The funds that will be retained are as follows: the Habitat Conservation Fund, the First Citizens Fund, the British Columbia Cultural Fund, the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund, the Lottery Fund and the Revenue Sharing Fund. Therefore they are not the subject of this bill before the House. These funds are of particular significance to certain groups outside the government, and for this reason their special status has been maintained — it is not being altered. One new fund, the Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund, will be created under another piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this at some length in the budget address on April 5, and undoubtedly there will be opportunities to discuss it, not only in second reading, but in another context as well.

With those few remarks I would move second reading of Bill 11.

MR. STUPICH: The government has obviously had a great deal of trouble managing its cash not just in bad times but also in good times. The budget that was read by the minister on April 5 pointed out that in the year ending March 31, 1981 the combined cash reserves of the province were reduced by $313 million. That was a good period, Mr. Speaker. In the year ending March 31, 1982, which was a mixture of good and bad, the cash reserves were reduced by $356 million; and it is proposed that they be reduced by another $279 million in the year ending March 31, 1983. It's all very well for the minister to say that this bill before us now does nothing to discharge the government from having the authority to spend money for the special purposes outlined in the various funds — perhaps more than twenty of them — and that the government still has these funds listed in the legislation and the authority to spend money for these various purposes that were introduced individually in the Legislature and almost all supported, I would think, unanimously. The government still has the authority to spend the money, but what the government is saying now is that, unless they have surplus cash, they won't spend it for the purposes outlined in the legislation before us.

There are some very specific individual concerns at this point in time. I intend to speak only generally, but as I

[ Page 7830 ]

understand it, that's the situation. The cash that's available to government by way of the combined consolidated revenue with the special funds money is all now lumped into one fund that will be used firstly for serving the operating needs of the government. If there happens to be anything left over for any of these special funds, they might stand in line and hope to get it. It certainly does provide the government with maximum flexibility in cash management; it relieves the government of having the responsibility of ensuring that cash will be available to meet the purposes of these funds that were established by the Legislature in some 20-odd different pieces of legislation.

The government still has the authority to spend money for these purposes, but the government is standing up now and admitting to the people of the province that they have so mismanaged the financial affairs of the province in their six years in office that they are no longer able to maintain the cash on hand to meet the needs of the funds that were established by the Legislature over the last 30 years. In itself, Mr. Speaker, that is a shocking admission for a government that boasts so much about its ability to manage cash in British Columbia. What they're really doing in this legislation is saying: "Look, we can't handle it; we need that cash to operate the government services." So they're taking the cash away from the special funds that up to this point in time has been held in reserve and they're going to use it for normal housekeeping, hoping that some day there may be some extra cash coming in, at which time they will be able to satisfy the needs of the special funds.

Up to this point in time many of these funds have been interest-earning. Interest has been credited to the funds, and this has been added to the amount available for the purposes of those funds. As I read it now, this will no longer be the case with respect to the funds dealt with in this legislation. Beyond that, I suppose the legislation we previously passed would allow the Minister of Finance to relieve the government of the responsibility of spending money for the purposes of these various bills to some extent by simply charging them an administration fee. This will be another way the government will be relieving itself of the responsibility and, of course, that won't affect its cash-flow problem.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, it's a shocking admission on the part of this government that they have so failed the people of the province that they have not been able to manage the affairs of the province in good times, let alone in bad times. We can't support a government that stands up and in effect admits in this legislation that they have failed the people of the province and have made a bad job of handling the finances of the province of B.C.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would reiterate the comments of my colleague for Nanaimo and support his contentions that these funds were established by the Legislature, supposedly for all time. It was very strong legislation, stating that this government was dedicated to carrying out the projects set out in the legislation for which this special funding was set aside. This government has now reneged on that commitment, it would appear.

One of the major concerns that I have, apart from that general concern about this piece of legislation, is that with the exception of one of the funds that is mentioned here, they are all made up of government funds — some is federal money and some is provincial money. The one fund that is included in here and is recouped is a fund made up from individual citizens in this province. It is, of course, the Farm Income Assurance Fund, where the producers of this province pay premiums for their insurance scheme into government coffers. That private money is now being recouped by this government and put into general revenue. That seems very different and much worse than the other funds that are recouped. That particular fund, the Farm Income Assurance Fund, is made up of premiums that are paid by the producers and supposedly the government's share of premiums.

I would be very interested if the Minister of Finance could tell me when he closes debate what the balance of that fund was as of March 31 of this year, and how much of that money was premiums paid by the producers and how much of it was actually government funds. There is a provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that limits the payments out of that fund to the total amount that is paid in, including that initial amount.

I think this is a fund that should be excluded from this bill. In fact I think all of them should be excluded, because I'm opposed to the whole concept. But that one in particular should not be in here, because it is a different kind of a fund. It's a fund where individual citizens of British Columbia contribute their dollars into an insurance scheme, and now that money is being taken over by the provincial treasury as consolidated revenue. You can pay out up to the maximum but you don't have to pay it all out. As the member for Nanaimo indicated, if you spend it for something else, you can't spend it for this. That doesn't seem fair, just or in line with the terms of the Farm Income Insurance Act. That particular fund seems utterly out of place in this bill. While I am opposed to the whole bill, the whole concept and the necessity to go back on commitments made by this Legislature to spend dollars on certain specific projects around this province, I completely object to the idea of including this fund — made up not just of government money but also of private, individual funding — in there.

I wish the minister, in closing debate, would tell us just how he proposes to ensure that the amount of farm income insurance owed by his government as a result of the Farm Income Insurance Act is able to be realized if it exceeds the amount set out in this bill. There are very stringent limitations put on what can be done. If, as I suspect, that fund stood very low on March 31, without government funds being added to it — simply the farmers' premiums — we are in a position where the farmers are going to be financing this government, and I object to that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated at the outset that it is not the intention of the policy which is fundamental to Bill 11 to dilute in any way the programs now financed through special funds. First, with respect to the comments by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I would like to assure her that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and I have had a very spirited discussion on this topic, as you would expect of a good Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is not being dealt with in this bill, Mr. House Leader.

The Minister of Agriculture can obviously speak for himself, but I believe that he is satisfied with the insurance which is in place with respect to that fund. I do not have the precise figure as of March 31, 1982 readily available for the

[ Page 7831 ]

member. I undertake to have that figure available for committee debate when we hit the appropriate section.

We recognize that there are implicit commitments through a number of the funds which are discussed in this bill. These commitments cannot be turned away from by the government. Nor would I suggest that we should turn away from them. However, we will have the ability to access these as and when appropriate and as and when available.

Comments can be made on the other side with respect to opposition to the entire concept of changing these funds into special accounts. I would like to have heard the member suggest the alternative. Much has been said in recent days about the province of Quebec. The Premier made a reference to the province of Quebec this morning in another debate. I would ask all members to compare our situation with that which exists in other provinces in Canada today, where early warnings were ignored and somewhat unpalatable steps were not taken in the initial instance. If that had been the case in some other provinces, contrary to what the member for Nanaimo has said.... If we had not taken those steps in British Columbia, we would indeed be in a serious situation. We are in a delicate situation in British Columbia in the spring of 1982. There is no question about it. We are in a delicate situation with respect to government revenues and government expenditures. I would stray into another piece of legislation if I were to speak about expenditures at length.

I think the member for Nanaimo ignores the fact that these funds have been set aside for the kind of financial environment in which we now find ourselves. That clearly was one of the purposes when special funds of this nature were first established. I did not originate the term, but I've used it a number of times this year: "rainy-day money." That was the purpose of special purpose funds — to put money to one side when government revenues were at a higher level than they are today. Completely to the contrary of the observation made by the member for Nanaimo, we can now turn to these funds as and when necessary, notwithstanding the commitments that have been made and the obligations that exist under the funds or, as they will be known, the special purpose accounts. I think that says a great deal about the financial management of the province over the last several years by my predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe); by those who work with me in the Ministry of Finance; but most importantly, by the members of government who have assisted in these difficult periods.

I think there will be a number of comments in committee. I thank the members for their observations. I don't accept all of them. I will have the figure requested by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). I move second reading of Bill 11.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

Bill 11, Special Appropriations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the House Leader, I have been informed that some of the bells apparently are not working. If those members who are having difficulty with the bells in their locations would advise the Chair at the earliest opportunity, we will have the matter looked into.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, I question the reliability of the bells at all times. They have not worked properly for a year and a half. I do not think this House can stand on the record of the bells until we have some way for the Chair to send out the signal and have a response that the bells did ring. Otherwise, I will never accept it. At certain times those bells do not function properly. It's unfair to expect members of this House to be in their place in four minutes — a very elementary situation — when you depend on bells so archaic that you never know if they're going to ring. It's out of the question. This House is too important to stand for a vote on such a matter.

This is the first time you've raised the question yourself. I want to say now that I'm thoroughly dissatisfied with the position that this House must be responsible for those bells and a four-minute call. I believe the time must come when you have a positive electronic response, or let the Whip decide when the vote is going to be called.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order, the standing orders are rather clear in terms of time. I would also point out that the bells worked perfectly until that point in time when the member who is now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) started tampering with them. They only went awry after he said he was going to fix them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order raised by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is certainly a valid point of order, and I will undertake to see what methods can be taken to ensure that members are given sufficient and proper notice to respond to a vote in this House. I'll report back on that matter.

MR. MUSSALLEM: In response to the remarks of the House Leader of the opposition, my point of order is that it was not this party that brought the question of bells into disrepute. It was that party on March 23, 1981, that spent 20

[ Page 7832 ]

minutes looking for one of their members. You agreed to it, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order has been well canvassed. It will be reviewed by the Chair, and a report will be brought back to the members of the House.

The House Leader has called second reading on Bill 47.

TRAFFIC VICTIMS INDEMNITY FUND REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: In moving second reading of Bill 47, I'd like to give some history. This Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund was established by an act in 1961. The main object of that fund was to ensure that victims of uninsured motorists were indemnified to an extent prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Act. Upon paying an innocent victim, the fund was empowered to subrogate against the responsible motorist or motorists.

Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 1974, the purpose of the fund was assumed by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia under section 20 of the Automobile Insurance Act, which is now section 19 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act. Having that responsibility transferred to ICBC, the fund in effect has outlived its usefulness. The corporation has taken over that function, and therefore its continued existence serves no purpose. The legislative changes in Bill 47 will wind up the fund and deal with the outstanding assets and liabilities.

I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that both the Ministry of Attorney-General and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways have been consulted with regard to the repeal of this fund and are in support of it.

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

MR. HALL: We take pleasure in supporting this amendment to repeal the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund and realize that the corporation has indeed had the real responsibility of administering that fund for some time now. As outlined in section 2, it will now clearly have the duty of looking after the victims of accidents caused by uninsured motorists. To that end, we are tidying up our statutes and clearly placing a direct and simple responsibility and duty on the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In another way, we're also serving notice to insurance companies that ICBC is here to stay. It may well be that that might cause some members on the opposite side not to support this piece of legislation. We'll have to see that when the vote is called — if the minister does call a division on second reading to find out if he's got this kind of solid support for the corporation in his own back bench.

It's only been a short time since the administrative leader of that party was calling for the phasing out of the corporation.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I see my colleague in Surrey is applauding that statement.

Here we see enshrined in the legislation another duty for the corporation to perform, so maybe we should call a division at the end of this debate to see how many government members will stand up and support the corporation and nail down once and for all how many government members and how many opposition members want to see this corporation succeed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not fair.

MR. HALL: I think we may do that.

Either in winding up debate or dealing in committee stage, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would bring — if he hasn't already got them with him — details on the assets of the fund at the present time. How many cases is the fund currently dealing with? In other words, we should have some idea of the dimensions of the problem. We know the dimensions of the problem of the normal accident rates, which are escalating at a pace that is far too alarming for us really to even consider.

The minister filed the financial statements of ICBC the other day. In his annual report which he filed on behalf of the corporation, the minister tabled the statistics about accidents. There were figures about claims and about the escalating costs of injuries. I think, as we now place this duty and responsibility fairly and squarely on the Insurance Corporation via these consequential amendments, we should find out from the minister either now or possibly in committee — there is no hurry about it — the kind of numbers involved in victims of uninsured motorists who are claiming from the fund. Give us some idea of the dimensions of the problem. I think that would assist the House. With those few words, we take pleasure in supporting this sensible move from the old-fashioned way of doing it, which was an inheritor of the old pooled-risk idea, to really recognizing the facts, as they are, that the corporation is responsible.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am pleased that the opposition has supported this bill. As the second member for Surrey knows, since 1974 ICBC has basically taken the role of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. He made some comment that ICBC is here to stay. I want to point out to the second member for Surrey that since 1976 ICBC has "paid its own way," after the huge deficit that was left there by the previous administration. The corporation is not subsidized by the taxpayer and does not run a deficit operation. It has its premiums calculated on the basis of claims incurred and on signed actuarial calculations. In short, it is properly managed. That is not to say that the management and expertise of the corporation cannot be improved. I can advise the second member for Surrey that, as minister responsible, I will continue to strive to have that corporation provide a reasonable cost insurance and the best coverage possible to the driving public of British Columbia.

I believe he asked for the amounts that were still outstanding. There is approximately $14 million in the fund on paper. I believe last year there was something less than $100,000 collected on those judgments against motorists who were responsible for uninsured claims. I would assure the member that on an ongoing basis ICBC will continue to attempt to collect against those judgments by people who have been responsible for the accidents. I believe the member asked about the numbers of claims against uninsured motorists at

[ Page 7833 ]

the present time. I will have to respond to him in committee on that. I will endeavour to get that information for him.

With those comments, I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 47, Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

MR. STUPICH: For some time the Chemainus Indian band, under the leadership of Chief Ray Harris, has been negotiating with Dome Petroleum on a lease of some 200 acres of reserve land for the construction of a shipbuilding facility that depends upon the shipment of liquid natural gas. They're wondering whether or not the provincial government — and I recognize that the responsibility really lies in the federal area — is trying in any way at all to persuade the federal government to insist that at least some portion of the LNG will be shipped in Canadian-built ships.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We haven't really got to that point at this time. We have three proposals for development of an LNG facility for shipment offshore. Applications have been made to the National Energy Board for approval to export that LNG. We are still in the process of our natural gas allocation procedure. I would expect that before the end of June a decision will be made on the process which we will recommend to cabinet — "we" meaning the ministry — as the proposal which offers the best overall benefits to British Columbia. We're in the final stages of those evaluations. The time to make that recommendation to cabinet would be when we might be making representations to the National Energy Board.

MR. STUPICH: The question was not about the process or even who might get contracts. The question was: in the event that LNG is shipped to Japan, would the provincial government be using its influence with the federal government to try to ensure that Canadian-built ships will be used to some extent in this transportation process? What is the provincial government's attitude? What is the attitude of this minister? Would he try to use his influence to try to get support from the provincial government in order to influence the federal government in favour of insisting that Canadian-built ships be used?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can't give a commitment of that nature at this time. First of all, we have not had a proposal, for instance, on what kind of subsidies would be necessary for a shipyard in either British Columbia or Nova Scotia. Dome Petroleum has made a number of proposals that some ships be built in Nova Scotia and, perhaps, that some be built in British Columbia. It has been implied, at least, that there would be some level of subsidy — large, small, intermediate, we don't know which — necessary from the two levels of government, provincial and federal, in order to allow those shipyards to be built. That's part of our study and part of our evaluation. We have to know, first of all, whether a subsidy is being asked for and, secondly, how much it would be and where it would come from before the ministry could recommend to cabinet on the proposal. Shipyards and an opportunity for developing shipment on Canadian vessels would certainly be part of that study — and are part of that study.

MR. STUPICH: I keep trying. I would like to have some indication from the minister that at least he favours the idea of using Canadian-built ships, whether the figures add up or something.... But to this point in time I've heard that there are going to be studies; nothing is conclusive yet; they don't know the figures. I appreciate that the study is going on. But I would like to have some indication from the minister that he would like to see that happen at least. Perhaps he's not prepared to go beyond that, but maybe he could go that far today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sure I'd like to see Canadian-built ships. If it means a subsidy of a couple of billion dollars or a billion dollars or six hundred million dollars, that's the question I don't yet have the answer to. I think the member would agree with me that perhaps there comes a time, when the subsidy required is at a certain level, that it may not be possible for us to insist on that development to happen. If all the member wants me to say is that I think it would be nice if we had Canadian ships carrying LNG, then I can certainly say that.

MR. STUPICH: We're making some progress. At least we do have the minister's support for the principle, in the event the subsidy is reasonable. I suppose my next question might be.... I don't think he can really answer this one. Although we have not been privy to the agreements, we're hoping that we're going to see material some day. I understand that the subsidy for shipping northeast coal is going to run somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.4 billion. I wonder whether he would consider that to be a reasonable or unreasonable amount for shipping LNG in Canadian-built ships. Mr. Chairman, I don't really expect him to be able to tell me whether that's a reasonable figure at this point, but I did want to get that question asked.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for the minister. Since he has his very able deputy with him, I'll be repeating some things that have been discussed here before but not responded to by the minister — at least not responded to in a satisfactory way as far as the committee is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, we're wondering if the minister can give us some indication of what the guidelines may be regarding the terms of reference for the hearings which the government has been promising for 25 years on the question of a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Also, can the minister advise us whether he and his government still wish to deny natural gas to industrial customers on Vancouver Island or whether he simply wants to make sure that industrial customers do not displace wood waste through the use of natural gas, which is a reasonable expectation.

[ Page 7834 ]

There are massive layoffs in the mining industry in B.C. — in excess of 6,000 temporary, medium-term and long-term, as the minister well knows. The minister has not publicly, to my knowledge, expressed concern about this, nor has he given any indication that he wishes to propose to his colleagues in government or to his opposite numbers in the federal government any sort of assistance to the industry or to these employees, in the same way that we have seen initiatives taken regarding the forest industry. I think we all know that when large numbers of people are without work it not only represents a considerable hardship to the people involved, but it also represents considerable expense to the provincial and federal governments. We all, I think, could agree that at least some good intentions and some initiatives from government to alleviate unemployment in the industry would be worthwhile. We don't expect miracles. I think it's reasonable to expect some good intentions and efforts.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has been very terse on the issue of the Cominco–West Kootenay Power utilities act exemption application, as well as on the various rate requirements and the question of the allocation of those power-generating sources. The question has been before regulatory bodies in B.C. since 1975, and it's a question which has cost the taxpayers a considerable lot of money over the years. It has cost the utility users money. Government slowness in coming to a decision has also delayed development plans. It has not only been through Cominco Ltd., but also, because it has delayed West Kootenay Power's ability to upgrade their in some ways antiquated plant facilities due to financial restrictions, it's fair to say that it has delayed and held back economic development in other industries in the West Kootenay Power market area as well. I would like the minister to give some indication as to whether or not he is able to make a decision on these matters which have been, as I said earlier, before regulatory bodies in British Columbia for some seven years now.

We asked a week ago if the minister and his senior administrator, who is with him, were going to be able to meet some of the concerns of the mining industry regarding the services whose provision is required by law, and particularly the services to the junior mining companies, who have been longest and loudest in their complaints about slowness — not about shoddy work, but simply slowness in areas covered by the minister's responsibility. Perhaps the larger companies who don't do, relatively speaking, as much exploratory work as the juniors can absorb this kind of tardiness. But particularly in today's economic climate, Mr. Chairman, it puts a hardship on an industry which is already burdened by poor international prices.

I would ask the minister again if he could possibly tell the committee if he even cares about the effect of the government's water-licence increases on the mining industry in general, and if he is going to make any attempt to go to his colleagues on the treasury benches and ask them to at least roll back the ad valorem, indexed increases which are going to go into effect over the next few years — as long as that wrecking crew over there stays in office. I see there are not very many people around over there to wreck, but they are definitely a wrecking crew as far as the economy of B.C. is concerned. The increases as they exist are heinous enough, Mr. Chairman. I would like the minister to at least make some sort of commitment to show that he cares what those increases have done to the mining industry, and what they're likely to do to the mining industry, and to all users of energy in British Columbia, and that he is going to at least attempt to persuade his colleagues to change their minds on already scheduled increases.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Vancouver Island pipeline question has been answered I don't know how many times. We have called for proposals from various people who are interested in developing Vancouver Island pipeline, and those proposals must be in by June 15. I'm very hopeful that by that same time we will have developed the guidelines and they'll be made public. They'll probably be sent to the Utilities Commission. I've never said that industrial customers would not have the opportunity to use natural gas, should natural gas come to Vancouver Island. As the member has correctly identified, we have expressed our concern about making sure that the forest industry makes the best use of the energy source available to it. That's still a policy of the government.

I don't know whether I've publicly said that I'm concerned about layoffs in the mining industry, but certainly I am, as is every member in this House, I'm sure. I must commend both the unions and the companies for the manner in which they've handled their problems. On the unions' side, I think they have been pragmatic enough — perhaps it's because most of them have been involved in the mining industry for a long time — to understand the cyclical nature of mining and the problems with world mineral prices. They understand that their employers are in serious difficulty right now. On the companies' side, I think they have done their very best — the ones I've been in contact with, at least — to ensure that those layoffs and plant closures come as much as possible during holiday periods in the summer. Hopefully an improvement in the world situation will allow them to put people back to work.

I also know that some of the companies are taking special actions in an attempt to ease their employees over this period, in terms of extra benefits that they might be able to provide. There is of course the problem of protecting unemployment insurance. Some benefits that might be provided by a company may in fact impact on the benefits the employee would get from the government of Canada. So there are some complexities, but I think the companies are trying to work them out to the best of their ability.

I have admitted at other times that we were guilty of some slow action in the ministry in approvals, in issuance of licences and things like that, during a period when things were really booming. We were overwhelmed by the nature of the demand for our services and we simply couldn't keep up. We've apologized for that and we've attempted to add efficiencies within the ministry to cope with those difficulties. Now, of course, things have slowed down considerably, which may offer us an opportunity to regroup and see whether or not, when we meet the increased demand again, we can meet it in a more efficient way. The deputy minister and other officials in the ministry are looking at that now.

The Cominco–West Kootenay matter is one I know the member is interested in and it's one I would hope to resolve quickly too. It's a very complex matter. It's not easy for government, it's not easy for the partners in the scenario and it's not easy for the Utilities Commission. We have some recommendations that are being studied now, and I hope we'll be able to make recommendations to cabinet reasonably quickly.

[ Page 7835 ]

MR. KEMPF I'll take a little of the committee's time this afternoon to ask the minister a few questions relating to the mining industry in the province of British Columbia. The items relate firstly to the Mining (Placer) Act and secondly to the increase in fees charged for the free miner's certificate in the province of British Columbia. Recently the fee charged for that certificate was raised from $5, where it has been for many, many years, to $25, a fee increase of 500 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the first question I have for the minister is: how much money is expected to be raised by the increase in that fee in this fiscal year for the treasury of the province of British Columbia?

My second question, Mr. Chairman: whatever that amount might be, in response to the first question, I would like to ask the minister if he's aware of the harm that that fee increase will perpetrate on the ordinary, free enterprise prospector in this province — that raising of the fee 500 percent.

My third question, is: how many free miners' certificates were issued in the province of British Columbia in the fiscal year 1981-82?

My fourth question to the minister is: do you as the minister of mines not consider the free miner's certificate a historic document? It is a document that has really been the foundation of the mining industry in British Columbia: a foundation built through the entrepreneurial initiative of hundreds of thousands of prospectors who have climbed the mountains and braved the elements to find new ore deposits, which has resulted in the mining industry in this province being second only to forestry.

My fifth question to the minister is: do you not think that because of its historical background the free miner's certificate should have been reduced, not increased, during these times of economic downturn in order to entice more prospectors into the field, in order to stake more new mineral claims in the province of British Columbia, so that when this economic downturn turns around the industry will be ready and able to start new mines in this province?

My last question has to do, as I said before, with the Mining (Placer) Act. I want to know today, from the minister, when the government intends to bring in amendments to that act which will eliminate the designated-area clause — the clause that designates where a placer mine can or cannot be staked in the province of British Columbia — and end once and for all the situation which dictates that the government and not the prospector knows best where gold can or cannot be found in our lakes and rivers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on the matter of the Mining (Placer) Act, it isn't anticipated that there would be amendments during this session of the Legislature. But that matter's always open for review, and I expect that it will be the subject of review when we're talking about legislation for the next session of the Legislature.

I agree that the free miner's certificate in British Columbia — and everywhere else, I guess, where there are miners — has been a historic sort of licence. I suppose that could be said about other things as well. I might add, however, that those increases have have not yet gone into effect. There is a bill before the House — Bill 33 — which allows for regulations to be established, and of course those regulations have been announced. If my memory serves me correctly, the total amount, not just from the free miner's certificate but from the increase in other fees as well, had been anticipated to be around $2 million of additional revenue for the treasury. It's between $2 million and $3 million. With the downturn in activity that has happened in the last little while, I expect that that revenue increase may not be met. The free miner's certificate had not been increased — nor had many of the other fees — for many years, so it was felt that in attempting to achieve revenue improvements, that was one area in which it could happen.

I've already indicated publicly — I have not yet had the opportunity to bring amendments into the House — that we will be withdrawing sections of that bill which is before the House. I don't know how far I can go today in the committee stage, but there will be withdrawal of the increased work requirements that are included in the bill, in recognition that the mining industry needs some encouragement and help. The member has talked to me in the past about perhaps considering other measures. There is a treasury matter here. It is under discussion with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and others. I guess it will be left to cabinet to decide whether or not there should be further changes to the bill presently before the House. I can give the member the commitment that it is under discussion.

I don't remember the exact number of free miners' licences. I believe I provided the member with that information, though, if I'm not mistaken. I think it was around 3,000 last year, but I'll get the exact information and make sure it comes to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the next speaker, I remind the committee that during the discussion of estimates of a minister, administrative actions of the ministry are open for discussion but we cannot discuss the need for legislation. I am sure all members are aware of that.

MR. KEMPF: I realize that if I were to talk about Bill 33 I'd be out of order. That is specifically why I didn't talk about Bill 33. The minister mentioned the fact that the free miner certificate situation could be cleared up by amendments to Bill 33 presently before the House. I want to point out to the House that the question of the free miner's certificate does not show up in Bill 33. The question of the raising of the fees of the free miner's licence was done by regulation and not by legislation. The fact is that it has already been raised. I have had reports of people out there who have already paid the $25 fee to obtain their free miners' licences so that they could prospect this coming summer.

I too am dissatisfied with most of the other fees mentioned in Bill 33, but I can't talk about those today and certainly will make my views known during debate on that particular piece of legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I was low on the number of free miner's certificates issued in the fiscal year of 1981 — the most up-to-date figures we have at this present time. There were around 16,260 and just over 1,000 companies issued. Under the present legislation the fees are set in the legislation. The bill which is before this House — I won't go into that any more than I have to to answer the question — proposes that those fees be set by regulation. Until that change is made it is not possible for us to set these fees by regulation.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a few questions for the minister. The first issue I would like to discuss with him is in regard to the $24 million to $45 million that has been spent on the

[ Page 7836 ]

feasibility studies for the Stikine-Iskut proposal. Is it possible for the Utilities Commission to look into the amount of money that has been spent on this proposal?

The second question I'd like to direct to the minister is: what plans does the minister have for northern power sites in regard to local consumption dams instead of building massive dams such as the Stikine-Iskut? Are there any plans the minister is aware of to utilize smaller streams to generate power for mining developments in the area? I bring reference to the minister in regard to the Cottonwood Stream just outside of Cassiar and the need for licensing approval and financial approval to utilize streams such as the Cottonwood to generate power for mining developments instead of using massive dams that will take 10 to 15 years to construct.

The third question I'd like to direct to the minister is regarding the federal-provincial council on single-industry towns. Judy Erola, the federal Minister of Mines, has started a committee looking into single-industry towns. There has been very little publication concerning this. I think the committee has been in existence for about six months now. I am just wondering what the minister could state in regard to the federal-provincial council on single-industry towns. Is the minister the representative for British Columbia on this committee, or has somebody been designated by the council? It is of vast interest to resource towns up north because of the conflicts and problems that have happened through dealing with the government in Ottawa because of their not understanding some of our concerns in the north. I was just wondering if the minister, if he is the delegate for British Columbia, could tell us what is happening in regard to this.

Another issue is that I would like to lend my support, too, to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in regard to the free miners' licences and strongly support his recommendation that in times of difficulty, instead of increasing free miners' licences by 500 percent, we should drop it to encourage mining throughout this province.

We covered the issue concerning the Utilities Commission, looking into the Stikine-Iskut proposal, and since massive amounts of money — $24 million to $44 million — has been spent, exactly what can be done through the Utilities Commission.

Another issue of local constituency concern is the O'Donnel River, up in Atlin. This river was changed from a code green to a code red by Environment, and it has handicapped approximately 40 placer miners. I wonder what the minister can tell the House concerning the river. It was changed to a code red because some southern bureaucrat decided that fish were being killed up there. Local placer miners have said that in the last five years there have been maybe three fish in that river, and that it's unnecessary to change the O'Donnel, which is very rich in gold for placer operations. It's put a lot of people out of work up in the Atlin area.

Regarding Amax, this year we've found that since the minister's last estimates a lot of problems have been solved by the company through to the Nishga people. I wonder what the minister can state regarding some of the inquiries that have been held into Amax: the McInerney report, the appeal on the licensing approval, what suggestions the minister can make concerning public input on projects such as Amax so local residents won't be finding themselves in the same ball of wax as what happened with Amax.

I think there were seven or eight questions that I asked the minister, and I would like to hear his response.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think I have any further information that I could bring the member about Amax. The ministry hasn't held inquiries; they've basically been at the request of the federal government and under their auspices. I think the results are quite well known. If the member is saying that perhaps we could learn something about the way in which the Amax proposal and development was handled, perhaps he's correct. Probably everyone involved would wish to approach things a little differently, including the company. I hope we've learned from some of the things that have happened during the development of Amax.

The information I have from the ministry about the O'Donnel River situation is that the leases on the river were issued after the code was changed, and that no one has been disadvantaged by a change of code in the middle of his lease or something like that. That was one of the major complaints that I had received from the Atlin area. If I'm getting incorrect information on that, I'd like to know about it, because while I think we all recognize that we have to protect the environment, in terms of these kinds of leases, I would not support any miner's being disadvantaged by a change of rules in the middle of the game. If that's happening, I'll find out about it and I will undertake to make sure that it doesn't continue to happen. If it has happened in the past, we'll do something about it.

I could advise the member that I will be going to Atlin in the next week or two — I've forgotten the exact date — speaking to the local placer mining association at their regular meeting. It was a commitment I made when I was there on my last visit, and I'll have that opportunity to get as much information as I can from those people who are affected.

In the investigation that I did, the code wasn't changed in the middle of a lease operation. Maybe we had better review the code itself and see whether or not it is appropriate, given the evidence that we have from Fisheries. I can ask my ministry to do some further work on that and let the member know, either during estimates, if it happens that quickly, or privately later.

The Task Force on Single Industry Towns was set up as a result of a federal-provincial meeting that the ministers of mines from the provinces and the federal minister, Judy Erola, had about six months ago. As a matter of fact, I just received correspondence from Ms. Erola today, suggesting that the work done by staff has gone about as far as it can go. She is requesting that some consultant reports be done and also that a person be put in place who can lead the task force. She has requested a sum of money from each of the provinces to help fund that. I just got it today, so I'll be responding to her on that. I hope that the task force can do some good work, and it will be a cooperative effort between our governments.

On the B.C. Utilities Commission, in answer to one of the other questions from, I think, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) the other day, we talked about whether or not there would be a systems review of Hydro's operations by the British Columbia Utilities Commission. I think my response at that time was that they're pretty busy, that we're considering it, but that there is a large element of systems review in the two hearings which are currently taking place — that is, the rate hearing and the Site C hearing. I would be very surprised if some recommendations don't come out of those regarding systems planning by B.C. Hydro.

Further on down the line, yes, the BCUC can interest itself in what Hydro is spending in terms of developing future

[ Page 7837 ]

projects in their studies — they have that opportunity and that responsibility. As for smaller Hydro developments, the matter at Cassiar particularly is being very actively reviewed by Hydro, by the management of Cassiar Asbestos and by another small private company — and I've forgotten their name now — which has been looking into the area. I think it's the Cottonwood firm that you mentioned. I can't get into legislation here, but I did mention the other day, when we were talking about estimates, that we are contemplating some changes to the Utilities Commission Act this session of the Legislature, which will make it easier for people to develop those kinds of alternatives to large power dams and other more traditional forms of energy.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows what I think about the attempt to take over Inland Natural Gas — and I think I know what he thinks about it. But my information, you know, on internal cabinet strife and the debates that take place in the cabinet room is limited, and so maybe I just think I know what the minister thinks. Anyway, the government passed this order-in-council to prevent the transfer on the books of Inland shares until the Utilities Commission had a chance to look at it. In the meantime the boys had registered 49 percent before the order became effective.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It was more like 30 percent.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, okay, but if you have even 30 and you've got the rest of the 93 percent of the shares and you keep them in your pocket, 30 is a pretty good majority. It's a better majority than the government has in this Legislature. So it's really effective control. The Utilities Commission really is, I'm afraid to say, on an empty exercise at the present time, and I think the minister understands that, because they can't take those shares back. They can't force Trans Mountain, Anderson and Ben Macdonald to divest, and that was the reason the government rushed out that order-in-council, which was too late. We can debate that another time, but the question I put to the minister is: is he prepared to do something about it if this takeover proves not to be in the public interest? I ask it like that because I'm being very careful to stay in order in terms of this Chair. I think the minister knows what's required — and I know what's required. But is he prepared to do anything about it in the event the Utilities Commission says no, this is not going to be good for the consumers of B.C.?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a little difficulty with this one. I'm not a lawyer and I can't give a legal opinion in this House. The second member for Vancouver East, I guess, can; he has his opinions about where we're at and where we might be able to go. I just have to go with the advice that I'm given by others who know the law — and I understand that there have been times when two lawyers haven't agreed about things. My concern in this whole matter, first of all, is that the public interest be served.

There are two responsibilities that the B.C. Utilities Commission has, as I read the legislation which established the commission. The first responsibility is that, should a takeover of a regulated utility take place, the present consumers — and, I guess, the future consumers as well — not suffer adversely in regard to rates. The second responsibility is that they don't suffer in regard to service.

My responsibility, as I felt it, was to ensure that a full, open, public hearing was held into all aspects of this particular takeover, and that the commission freely and publicly report to the government whether or not those two objectives would be served, should the takeover take place. I hope the member would agree that there certainly has been that full opportunity for questioning, that those questions have been asked and that the commission will have enough information upon which to deliver a report. I think I can only say that I must wait until I hear what the commission says. I would have to decide then, in consultation with the Attorney-General and the members of my cabinet, whether some different kind of action would be necessary. My concern is that the public's interest is protected in this. That is the reason for the section in the act which, as I understand it, was taken from the old Energy Act, which I believe the member for Vancouver East put forward when he was in a different position.

MR. MACDONALD: That is right. I think section 61 is pretty well the same wording as the old Energy Act. The trouble, of course, is that the hearings didn't take place soon enough in terms of the takeover. I will just be out of order here for a few seconds. I think that the government should....

MR. SEGARTY: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Who said that? What the heck? He's just arrived here. What does he know about the rules of this House? A person is entitled to be out of order in this House providing they don't prolong the matter. Have you not learned that yet? As long as you can get it out before the Chairman or the Speaker checks you up, there's no point of order involved.

I think there has to be retroactive legislation to protect the public of B.C. I say that in terms of section 61. It's got to be applicable, because it's definitely not, in spite of what the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) has told you and has been telling everybody else and in spite of.... I almost went on, as I could go on. That takeover is not in the public interest, and the government is going to have to pass an amendment to section 61 to prevent it taking place.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I guess the member for Vancouver East can make that statement. He does not believe that this takeover is in the public interest. He has every right to make that statement publicly, privately and every other way he wants. I don't think I'm allowed that luxury. We have put in place a Utilities Commission. We have legislation and if the member thinks the legislation is defective in one way or another.... Nevertheless, we have a commission which has committed itself to public hearings. Those public hearings have been held, and I believe they have been fairly held. Now I await a recommendation from the commission. As a responsible minister, I don't think I should be allowed the luxury of saying, without having recommendations like that, that it is in the public's interest or not in the public's interest.

MR. SKELLY: The minister responded to my question of a few days ago about the proposal to put the whole system plan of B.C. Hydro before the Utilities Commission so that we would possibly save a lot of the money that Hydro is

[ Page 7838 ]

presently expending on projects such as Hat Creek, the Stikine or the Liard. Should the panels of the Utilities Commission at some time in the future shoot down those projects, $40 million, $50 million or $100 million of public money could have been wasted investigating those projects prior to having them go before the Utilities Commission for approval in principle. As has been mentioned, Hydro has asked for this themselves.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If the present Utilities Commission's hands are full and they are having some difficulty dealing with this matter, the minister is free to examine this or take the approach of a royal commission of inquiry. I am kind of surprised that in the forest industry we are willing to do it every ten years, except when the Sommer's case crops up and we take a ten-year holiday.

In order to broaden the examination so it includes not only Hydro's system plan but also some of the other energy proposals for the province of B.C., the minister might very well put the whole matter before a royal commission of inquiry and have it resolved down to a number of key issues prior to the time that it goes before the Utilities Commission. I think it's a bit of a dodge when the minister says that the Utilities Commission's hands are full right now, because he could examine that problem in another arena, if he really wanted to do so, to have the problem refined down so that it would be in proper order for the Utilities Commission to deal with it. I think in that way we could also find out which groups in the province wish to have input into an analysis like that. Hydro is not the only one in this province that has a plan for the energy future of British Columbia. Other energy companies have as well and maybe those energy companies, as well as Hydro, should place their plans before the people and before public-interest groups and energy groups and see what we come up with in terms of an energy policy.

When that policy was originally announced by Jack Davis, who at that time was Minister of Energy, and by the member for.... I can't think of his name or his riding at this point.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: No, it was the Hon. Mr. Hewitt from Boundary-Similkameen. When he was Minister of Energy, he suggested that there would be an energy policy drafted by this province, that it would have the opportunity of full public input before going through a final draft and that we would all have an opportunity to express our concerns about energy. Finally, when they just about had the energy policy ready to go and they were about ready to change ministers again, he said: "Oh, no, it's all too late; we don't need the public input now. It would just cause confusion." Then they introduced the energy policy and caused even more confusion.

That's been the problem all along. Why don't we take the energy issues that we see facing us today, place them before a royal commission or some other form of inquiry and resolve them down to a number of critical issues that can be dealt with by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Among these issues we would find B.C. Hydro's system plan.

For the minister to say that the commission's hands are full right now is simply another dodge, Mr. Chairman. He doesn't really want to do the analysis of Hydro's system plan.

It's just something he wants to put off and forget about and get those projects that Hydro has asked for on stream as quickly as possible. I think the minister is trying to dodge the issue entirely.

There are some specific mining issues that I'd like to bring up with the minister. They involve questions that have been forwarded to me by citizens in the areas affected. One has to do with 20th Century Energy Corp.'s copper prospect on Gambier Island. Just what stage in the approval procedure is the Gambier Island project at? Also, why is it going ahead in the first place? I can recall when the member for North Vancouver–Seymour stood up in this House and said that the minister should have the jam to cut off this project right now. It violates the Islands Trust Act; it violates the Gambier community plan; and it is not wanted by the people in the area. Why does the minister not cancel the review procedure right now and respect the wishes of the people of Gambier Island, their elected representatives and the law that has been laid down, both in this Legislature and in the...?

AN HON. MEMBER: And their MLA.

MR. SKELLY: Well, supposedly their MLA; we don't really know for sure.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who's their MLA?

MR. SKELLY: Are you their MLA? I'm sorry, because a number of them have written to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and got nothing but a brick wall.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How soon they forget, Don.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've been over there four times crawling up mountains.

MR. SKELLY: I think the member is asking me to withdraw, and I most certainly and humbly apologize for what I've just said. I was referring to the hon. Attorney-General, who has brick-walled the people whenever they've approached him.

I think one of the things that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources should do in dealing with these people, as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said last year in debates in this House, is stand up and say that he will not tolerate any further violation of the Islands Trust Act, that he will tolerate no further infringement on the official community plan for Gambier Island and that he will announce that because of the wishes of the people expressed in legislation and through their elected representatives he will not allow that 20th Century copper project to proceed on Gambier Island. I would ask the minister to do that today, to respect the wishes of those people.

Another mining property that we're concerned about because of the approval procedure that mines go through prior to being permitted to operate in British Columbia.... It has to do with the approval procedure under the metal-mines guidelines process. In the case of Carolin Mines, as we have mentioned before.... I asked the minister a question in the Legislature, and he has yet to answer.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll answer it for you today.

[ Page 7839 ]

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I hope you will.

Why was Carolin Mines only required to go through the stage one approval procedure when such serious reservations were expressed by hydrology people in the Ministry of Environment and by the fish and wildlife branch in the Ministry of Environment? In fact, I'm aware that a person who is now a director of B.C. Hydro — appointed by the minister — was one of the first fish and wildlife conservation officers to file an objection to the Carolin Mines development a long time ago because of the effect that it would have on the development of the Coquihalla River as a steelhead run. It appears that the recommendations of that conservation officer were ignored and that the mine has gone ahead regardless, and it appeared to us that the only reason why such a mine would go ahead in spite of the serious reservations of officials within the Ministry of Environment was that there was some political persuasion exercised on the minister to have that mine go ahead.

When the minister answered part of that question in the House, he said he had not received any representation from the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) or from any other member. I assumed at the time that he was referring to the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I was surprised that that member, knowing as he does, in intimate detail, what's happening in his community and in the mining industry, would not express concern about the possibility that Carolin Mines would end up poisoning Ladner Creek, the Coquihalla River and ultimately the Fraser River.

I was hoping that the minister would say no, that he had received no representations from the member for Delta but that he had received representations of concern from the member for Yale-Lillooet. It's my assumption that, because he received representation from someone other than the sitting member for the area, the member didn't care one way or the other whether the mine poisoned the Fraser, the Coquihalla or Ladner Creek, as long as he could claim there was a mine going ahead in his riding. That's totally irresponsible on the part of that sitting member for the riding in which Carolin Mines is located. So we are seriously concerned about the approval procedure which metal mines must go through prior to receiving their operation, pollution-control and reclamation permits in this province.

Carolin Mines is an example which reinforces our opinion of how these procedures should be handled. From the beginning, they should be handled by public notice, by public involvement, by public hearings throughout the guidelines procedure. After the stage one prospectus phase, public hearings should be held. They should not be sponsored by the proponent as an information session. They should be sponsored by the Ministry of Mines or, preferably, by some other more independent organization with a more overall and more objective concern about the effects of metal mines on the environment and on the health and safety of the people and the animals that live in that environment. We're seriously concerned about the procedure. We would like to hear from the minister what improvements he is planning, now that he has gone through the Carolin Mines experience.

I know I shouldn't talk about charges that have been laid. I understand there are now 21 charges against the company. I don't want to deal with that, but simply with the process by which these mines are approved in the first place. After this experience, does the minister have any proposals as to how that procedure is going to be changed to allow for more public involvement in the decision-making and more public information and access to information about what decisions are being made?

The other mining problem that I would like to draw to the attention of the minister has to do with the Equity silver mine in the riding of the great representative from Omineca. Since he hasn't mentioned it in the House....

MR. KEMPF: It's been taken care of. You're behind the times.

MR. SKELLY: He says it's been taken care of, but the people in his riding don't feel all that well taken care of. I note in a column called "Under the Dome" — which some of us around this Legislative Assembly read — one of his constituents calls him "a vacuum waiting to be filled." I'm sure that at the next election in Omineca we'll find the vacuum back trying to find a job in Omineca. Possibly there'll be some better representation down in Victoria from that great constituency that hasn't been well represented over the past few years.

MR. SEGARTY: I think he's talking about Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: Yes. I've got a few things here about Alberni too.

There are serious problems at the Equity silver mine relating to the acidity of exposed overburden rock. Initially, there was the problem of leakage from a sulphuric acid tank, I believe it was. Berms were thrown around the tank. A lot of this was under the supervision of the waste management branch people and the pollution control branch. There was also the problem that the acidity of the overburden and the rock was recognized well before the mine was developed, and was considered not of any great importance. Now water washes off the piles of overburden, the waste piles, through this broken rock, which leaches acidity into the environment and increases the acidity in the local streams to dangerous levels. So there are serious problems with that minesite. I understand that by the end of February they were supposed to table a proposal as to how they were going to deal with these problems. I understand that that proposal is late. I also understand that no charges were laid against the mine, in spite of the fact that they severely damaged the creeks into which the acid and the acidic water flowed. I'm wondering just what plans have been made to resolve the problem at the Equity silver mine?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not familiar with the problems at Equity. No one has ever come to my office with those problems. If there were charges to be laid, I'm sure they would be laid not by my ministry but by the Ministry of Environment waste management branch, I would expect.

MR. SKELLY: Who is responsible for the mine?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if there are problems at that mine. I would have expected that someone in the community would have come to me to complain about those problems.

MR. SKELLY: That's the MLA right there.

[ Page 7840 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Maybe the MLA doesn't think there are problems there. The member for Alberni indicated that community groups have been complaining about problems at the mine. I would advise that they should get in touch with me if they have some problems. I'm just saying to you that they haven't at this time. I have had no contact from any community groups regarding the Equity silver mine. I would be very happy to have that contact with those people. I'll certainly try and get some information for the member, but any charges that would be laid in regard to environmental damage would be laid by the Ministry of Environment. I'm not trying to pass the buck, but I'm saying it as it is.

On the matter of the Carolin mine, again, those charges were laid by the Ministry of Environment because the contraventions there were under the waste management branch and were concerned with the discharge of an effluent exceeding the limits of their pollution-control permit, for one thing, and for non-compliance in other areas.

I recognize that the member would like to see different procedures for the metal-mines guidelines process. He's said to us in the House before that he'd like more public input. In this instance, at any rate, it was not the guidelines procedures which allowed the problem at Carolin Mines to happen. It is not correct that we did not receive a stage two report or that we ever said that a stage two report would not be required. In fact, it was required and was submitted. The original assessment under the stage one proposal was reviewed by several government agencies. There were concerns raised by the hydrology section of the Ministry of Environment. Their concerns did not include any likely possibility that the tailings dam would fail. Rather, they had some other concerns in the area. Nevertheless, because those concerns, including those of the Ministry of Environment's fish and wildlife branch, were submitted to us, we required Carolin to submit a stage two addendum report. These concerns were specifically requested to be addressed at that time.

After the initial review of that stage two report, a number of other meetings were held between government agencies and representatives and consultants of the mining company. Approval to proceed to the permitting stage was granted only after it was determined that the concerns raised had either been satisfactorily answered or could be answered at the time the permits were issued. It was accomplished under a stage two procedure, which I suppose has now been improved somewhat; it wasn't quite as formal then as it is now. Perhaps that is where some of the confusion arose. I am not apologizing here, but the guideline procedure at the time the Carolin Mines proposal was being put forward was really at the formative stage and has since been refined considerably.

Dealing further with the question, at no time did the Metal Mines Guidelines Steering Committee or the Environment and Land Use Committee recommend any waiver of the stage two study process. Rather, we asked for and got that report. In the permitting stage we also have the opportunity to ask for further improvements if those improvements are necessary beyond a stage two report. That was done as well. One of the major results of that requirement.... I don't know if the member has actually been on the property, but I am sure he would know that one example of the demands made of Carolin during the permitting stage, after stage two, was the one by the fish and wildlife branch that a major culvert, costing around $1 million, I believe, be put through the entire length of that operation to help protect and contain Ladner Creek. So those kinds of things were put in place, and I don't believe the difficulties that have come since really have much to do with the guideline process.

Frankly, the company didn't do some of the things it was required to do. I have no idea why. I suppose those questions will come out as time goes on. At any rate, seven charges have now been laid concerning the discharge of the effluent in excess of what the permit allowed, as I mentioned, and some other non-compliance. There were 14 other charges laid by federal Fisheries regarding the discharge of a deleterious material. That's in the hands of those agencies in the courts, I guess, effectively now.

There was one violation of our Mining Regulation Act. We have not laid charges in that regard. The tailings impoundment has not been completed to the recommended height. However, we are informed by all the people who were responsible for the investigation into the incident that that was not a direct cause of the problem. I suppose there is still the opportunity for the ministry, if it wishes at some later date, to lay charges, and certainly to insist that the company meet its requirements under the act. We will certainly do that.

In regard to Gambier, the member asked what stage it's at. It's at no stage. We are following legislation which requires us to take certain steps in approving mines. We haven't had any application for a mine on Gambier Island. We have had some unsolicited reports prepared by a private company and paid for by another private company. We've really done nothing with them except receive them as information. The mine is nowhere. It is not in the guidelines process. We've had no formal application from anyone for a mine in that area. I guess that's where it's at.

MR. SKELLY: This comes as quite a surprise. I thank the minister for the information that there are no guideline procedures initiated on the 20th Century Energy Corp. proposal.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We have no proposal.

MR. SKELLY: You just have the reports and whatever else comes in in an unsolicited way.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We didn't ask for them.

MR. SKELLY: Actually, this is the first time that information has come across the floor, so it's interesting.

Had you responded to the people who have sent you the reports by saying: "Thank you, but the Islands Trust Act and the Gambier Island community plan, passed by order-in-council by the present government, preclude any mining development on Gambier Island. We thank you for your reports...." Why allow a company to go on developing and submitting these reports on the assumption that some time in the future they might have the opportunity to develop, when, if the minister actually respected the wishes of the people on the island and respected the legislation that covers the island, he would simply respond to 20th Century Energy Corp. by saying: "Well, it's very interesting to receive the documentation, but please be advised that no mines are permitted on Gambier Island." I think you would save the company a lot of money, and they'd start looking at prospects elsewhere. So I'd appreciate the minister's comments or his reaction to that suggestion.

In the case of Carolin Mines, he said that the company didn't do something it was required to do, I suppose, under

[ Page 7841 ]

the permitting procedures which resulted from the metal-mines guidelines process. Why were charges not laid? One of the things we've always said in this Legislature with respect to environmental and other statutes is that there tends to be no respect for the law unless the law is enforced. For example, when the Pollution Control Act is not enforced.... As we've seen in this year's annual report from the auditor-general, there appears to be a tendency to ignore the report, the legislation and the permit requirements entirely. I think that in one case, out of 39 permits she investigated, over 14 were found to be seriously in violation. A number of others were found to be in violation, and very few were found to be in compliance with the permit requirements, simply because the act was not enforced.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're in the wrong ministry.

MR. SKELLY: I'm getting to your enforcement; I'm talking exactly about what you said — that you had no intention of laying any charges, even though the mining company in this case did not go along with the requirements in their permits and the conditions that arose out of the metal-mines guidelines process.

So I'm saying that in the case where legislation is not enforced, the result is that everybody ignores it, the legislation simply amounts to window-dressing and serious problems result. What I am saying is that our belief here is that when legislation is violated, then enforcement should follow. If we are to have any respect for the law, for the ministry and for the minister — if that is possible — then that legislation should be enforced, and in the future more mining companies will obey the legislation and take it seriously.

I reject the suggestion you made that nothing Mines did resulted in the problems that all the people downstream from the Carolin Mines operation face as a result of what happened at the minesite. I think that is a serious problem.

I am absolutely surprised that the minister has heard nothing about the Equity Mines situation. Newsletters have gone out. I know that petitions have gone to the ministry. I have written a letter to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) in response to a petition that went to him, to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and to other ministries. He is not answering my letter until he gets a list of the names on the petition which was already sent to him. I don't know how he runs his ministry. Maybe it's the petition you were reading from earlier. Maybe you throw some away and save some. If you check your correspondence, you will find that information. If you haven't checked your correspondence, I will send you the information. If you don't believe that there are serious problems at the Equity silver mine, then I suggest you send your mines inspectors up to take a look, along with those waste management branch inspectors. You are going to find some pretty serious problems that have been identified at public meetings in the area by Equity officials and by public citizens, as well as by government officials in branches other than your own.

Mr. Minister, I think that if you don't know what the problems are at Equity Mines, then you are having serious problems administering your department. I recall when it was the time to transfer you out of Health — when you were getting a little over your head with heroin treatment programs and some crazy scheme about recreating Lexington, Kentucky, here on Vancouver Island. Maybe now is the time to get you out of your ministry and back on the back bench where you can afford to be a little more competent.

MR. KEMPF: I am really surprised at that member who just took his seat. He has been in this House a lot longer than I have, and I'm really surprised that when situations like the spill at Equity Silver Mines take place, the member doesn't even know the appropriate ministry to go to. I want that member to know I've been involved in the Equity spill since the very hour it happened, and I want to tell you the whole story.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You brought up the subject; now listen to the story. If that member didn't know, the least he could do is alert the prospective NDP member for Omineca and tell him about it, and he could have yet another reason to have both of his feet sticking out of his mouth, as he always does.

Let me talk about the Equity Silver Mines situation. The member says that no charges were laid in the Equity situation. That is right, and none should have been laid. Placer Development, whatever you might say in this House about them, is one of the finest corporate citizens this province has ever had. They did everything within their power to rectify a spill. When accidents happen, as unfortunate as they may be, you can't turn them around. You can only do your best to try to rectify the situation, and that is exactly what Placer Development did.

Let's go a little further. You talked about my involvement. Yes, I've talked on many occasions to my constituents. Yes, I have a copy of the letter and of the petition of which you speak. I've spoken with and written to all those who signed their names and put their addresses to that petition. Because I knew of that spill as soon as it happened, and knew of the concern of the people in my constituency about such a situation, I have been twice as involved as I would perhaps have been in any other situation in my constituency.

I'm going to read this letter into the record. Had the member gone to the proper ministry, the member would have known that when you have a spill of that sort you go to the Ministry of Environment; you don't go to the Ministry of Mines. You go to the Ministry of Environment to find out what's going on and what's going to be done. That's exactly what I did, Mr. Member. I've been corresponding with that ministry, and talking with that minister on practically a weekly basis since that happened. The last letter I received is, I grant you, a month old now, but I want to read it into the record. Mr. Member for Alberni, you could have saved yourself all the embarrassment of getting up in the House and being wrong again, had you gone to the right ministry to find out what's going on in my constituency. You'd be better off looking after your own constituents than going into somebody else's constituency and being wrong again, Mr. Member.

I'll read this letter into the record; it is signed by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and dated April 19, 1982:

"This will acknowledge your memo of March 9, 1982, regarding the spill-prevention improvements that have been undertaken by Equity Silver Mines Ltd. near Houston.

"Since my last memo to you on this topic, my staff and the waste management branch advise me that

[ Page 7842 ]

Equity Mines has completed construction of a concrete containment berm around its sulphuric acid storage tank. The berm will be lined with asphalt when weather permits. The design for similar berms around the mine's caustic and sodium sulphide storage tanks has also been completed, and construction is expected to commence shortly.

"A diversion ditch" — and this is what you were worried about — "to direct runoff water away from the main mine-pit has been constructed. A collection ditch to collect any water from the main pit and direct it to the tailings pond has also been built. Additional collection and diversion ditches in other mine areas are in various stages of construction.

"Equity Mines has contracted a consultant to prepare a comprehensive plan for containment of runoff water for the entire mine and mill area, as well as to address the mine's handling of processed chemicals. This consultant's report is expected to be completed within two or three weeks."

I would think that maybe by now it is. And you'd have found that out, Mr. Member, had you contacted the right ministry. You didn't have to be embarrassed like you are now. I continue to quote, Mr. Chairman.

"The first draft of the spill contingency plan has been prepared by Equity Mines. The draft was reviewed by my staff and returned to the company for rewriting to correct some deficiencies.

"I believe that Equity Silver Mines is now making significant progress in reducing the potential environmental impact of its operation. My staff in the waste management branch will continue to closely monitor the program that has been undertaken to ensure that all the necessary improvements are completed as quickly as possible."

The member has left his seat. I don't blame him. I, too, would be embarrassed to the point where I'd leave this House if I came in and said the things he did, when it was a very simple thing to go to the proper ministry and find out what was going out in my constituency. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the next time that member has a problem — or seems to have a problem — which is in my constituency, he contact me, the member for the constituency in which he seems to have problems. Other than that, I would suggest to the member that he keep his nose in his own constituency.

MR. LEA: I hope the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) doesn't leave, because the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has gone down to get another letter from the Minister of Environment that I think may put a little more light on the subject. Now, we don't want you to run out when he brings it back. You'll be here?

MR. KEMPF: I'll be here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he going to make up some new facts?

MR. LEA: Well, if he makes them up, they'll be right off the paper sent by the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister about a situation in my constituency on the Queen Charlotte Islands. That's a proposed gold mine, Cinola. I know that the stage two report required from the company has not yet been submitted to the government and government agencies.

When that report comes, would the ministry consider, through the government, that some funding be made available to a local group on the Queen Charlotte Islands so that they can do the kind of research around that phase two report, that they could take well-reasoned, well-researched, well-done documentation to a public hearing so that the information isn't all one-sided coming from the company? Will the minister consider funding any local group or groups on the Queen Charlotte Islands to do research into the phase two report when it is submitted to Cinola Mines?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't have funds available in my ministry for the kind of research that the member has suggested.

MR. LEA: Is he aware of any government funding — not necessarily from his ministry — that would be available to a local group?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It is interesting that the Minister of Agriculture assumes anybody who is interested in the environment has to be NDP.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't say that.

MR. LEA: You said it in a different way, but you said it. I have news for the minister and for the government. There are Social Credit members, Liberal members and Conservative members in my riding who are concerned about the environment. I believe that it might pay for that government to start considering that the environment isn't necessarily a strictly partisan question that we face as a legislature.

Does the minister know whether there is any other agency of government that does any funding for local groups so they can do the kind of research that is needed to address a public hearing on phase two of any mining operation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The questions posed by the member go beyond the scope of questions we can ask in committee on the minister's vote. We can ask questions of a minister relating to his office. We cannot ask questions relating to other ministers not before the committee.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I am required to go down the line, is that it? It would seem reasonable to ask the minister whether he knows anything. The rules may be unreasonable. Do I have to start at that end and go right back until I hit the lucky minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is guided by the rules that we have established for debate in committee, and that is one of the rules.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The proposition the member puts forward is not one that has been considered by my ministry. We are interested in the environment and the protection of the environment, and that's the reason the guidelines process has been set up in the way it has, involving the various ministries involved who have that opportunity.

I'll stay in order after I make just one comment: that is, I don't know of any other funds available in government, but in conversation with the Attorney-General I understand there is

[ Page 7843 ]

an organization available called the public advocacy committee, which is funded by the Law Foundation of British Columbia. The member might want to pursue that.

Now I'll get back in order.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

QUINTETTE MINES PROJECT COSTS

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) quoted some figures during the afternoon question period in a fashion that could tend to mislead the House and the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: We cannot take the option of a ministerial statement to make unparliamentary charges, so I would ask the hon. minister to find another way to phrase his statement.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: During the afternoon question period, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody quoted some figures that I disagree with...

MR. SPEAKER: That's better.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and I'd like therefore to straighten out the House and the people of British Columbia. The hon. member quoted from the Quintette Mines stage two submission to the coal guidelines steering committee and said, as reported in the Blues, that a third of the project costs are going outside British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the House I'd like to state that during the 20-year life of the Quintette mine project, the regional content of expenditures is estimated to be as follows: in the Peace River area, for wages and other supplies, $1.864 billion; in other parts of British Columbia, $4.709 billion; in the rest of Canada, $2.256 billion; outside of Canada, $981 million. Out of an estimated $9.81 billion — and that's in 1981 dollars — to be spent by Quintette in the construction and operation of its mine over the period of the first 20-year contract, $1.864 billion, or 19 percent, will be spent locally in the great Peace River area; $4.709 billion, or 48 percent, will be spent in other parts of British Columbia. That's a total of 67 percent, probably the highest percentage of any megaproject that's ever taken place in this country, to be spent in the province in which it takes place. Another $2.256 billion, or 23 percent, will be spent elsewhere in Canada. Less than a billion, or only 10 percent, will be spent outside the country. If the hon. member resents the 23 percent that is being spent outside of B.C., let me remind him that this is not only a British Columbia project but indeed a project for all Canadians. We in British Columbia are not parochial.

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has seen fit to quote from this document in the House, I would like to read from the document as well. From the source that he sees fit to quote, we have yet more confirmation of the facts that he refuses to accept: "Total government investment in transportation and townsite infrastructure is more than offset by revenue generated by the Quintette project alone," not taking into consideration the Teck project. The total government investment will be returned by revenues from just one of the two contracts which go to make up northeast coal.

The document continues to say: "The combined Quintette and Bullmoose projects create a large surplus of revenues over government investment." Here, from a source that the hon. member feels is credible enough to quote in this House, we have a reiteration of what I have been telling this House all along and a direct contradiction of the pat line that he and his socialists in the House continue to chorus, chat and try to foist on the people of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: It's interesting to note that the minister, tossing off these figures of billions of dollars left, right and centre, failed — and I think probably deliberately — to mention the fact that the people of British Columbia are going to subsidize that Japanese steel industry to the extent of $1.5 billion. I think that was a deliberate omission. The minister failed to tell the House, in his dealings with the relationship over northeast coal, why he undertook to sneak $45 million out of the treasury before the end of the fiscal year and sent it over to B.C. Rail, again as a subsidy to pay the interest on capital costs during construction so it will never show up as a cost factor. That's part of the subsidy.

The minister failed to indicate that he contradicted himself by, at one point, telling this House on his honourable stature as a minister that the project was going to be financed by the purchase of equity shares in B.C. Rail and then subsequently turning around and denying that in the budget by saying that it was going to be financed by long-term borrowing. It's very interesting to note that the minister leaves out of his comment those things which are most damaging to his own mismanagement of this project.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to complete an answer to a question from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that was incomplete at question period.

Leave granted.

SEIZURE OF GOODS AT PRINCE RUPERT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the transportation of liquor, in addition to the problems that I mentioned of liquor being consigned to what are commonly known as dry reserves, there was a seizure on May 12 of liquor bound for the Kincolith Reserve, which is a wet reserve. The police had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the consignee was making liquor available to minors. The RCMP were alerted by the band council of the Kincolith Reserve of this matter. As a consequence, six 40-ounce bottles of whiskey were seized under section 67 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. Under section 69 of that act, the person to whom they were consigned has the right to apply to have the liquor returned.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) sought to move adjournment of the House, pursuant to standing order

[ Page 7844 ]

35, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the charge of a $25 fee for commencement of an appeal against the granting of a permit in the spraying of herbicides and pesticides. In determining whether such an application comes within the confines of standing order 35, I note that Committee of Supply has priority under orders of the day, and that consideration of the estimates of the ministries of Agriculture and Food and Environment has not been completed, so that a normal parliamentary opportunity will arise wherein the matter may be raised. Accordingly, the application fails. See Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, at page 371.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.