[ Page 8803 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement re selection of Western LNG Project.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8803

Mr. D'Arcy –– 8804

Routine Business

Oral Questions

B.C. Railway borrowing. Mr. Leggatt –– 8805

Small business bankruptcies. Mr. Lea –– 8805

Emergency budget. Mr. Stupich –– 8806

Increase in jailings due to economic recession. Mr. Macdonald –– 8806

Cutbacks in health care. Mr. Cocke –– 8806

Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 66). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On section 2 –– 8807

Mr. Lockstead

On section 12 –– 8807

Mr. D'Arcy

On section 19 –– 8808

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. Williams

On section 20 –– 8812

Mr. D'Arcy

On section 34 –– 8814

Mr. D'Arcy

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

On vote 57: minister's office (continued) –– 8814

Ms. Sanford

Mr. King

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 57 –– 8826

Division

Tabling Documents

Expo 86 Corporation annual audited financial statements, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 8827

Human Rights Commission of British Columbia annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 8827

Appendix –– 8827

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the gallery today Mr. and Mrs. Perry Hein from Field. I d like the members of the House to join me in welcoming them to the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have visiting with us today a constituent of mine who has brought a Vietnamese delegation here to meet with the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I would like to introduce the constituent and the delegation, and have the House welcome them. They are Mr. John Nguyen, a graduate of the University of Saigon; Mr. Huy Ngoc Nguyen; Dr. G. Soma; and Dr. Lam Thao.

MR. LEA: We would like to associate ourselves with the remarks made by the hon. minister. The same delegation, associated with Vietnamese refugees in B.C., met with members of our caucus this morning. We would like to join with the government in welcoming them here today.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In the members' gallery today is a very special visitor to the Legislature from Edmonton, Alberta. Would members join me in extending a warm welcome to my mother, Mrs. Louis Hyndman.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity — a rare one, if one is an interior member — to introduce the mayor of the city of Vernon, Lyall Hanson. I ask the House to give him a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: This afternoon we ve got another mother from the prairies in your gallery, Mr. Speaker — the mother of one of our most senior civil servants in British Columbia, Mrs. Ada Prentice; she is here with her son and his wife. I'd like the House to welcome the Prentices this afternoon.

MR. STRACHAN: I'd like the House to welcome some gentlemen from B.C. Hydro who are visiting with our caucus today. In the House and in the precincts are Ron Avery, Bill Best, Eric Martin and Norman Olsen. Would the House please welcome these distinguished gentlemen.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like the House to welcome Mayor Ivan Messmer from the city of Penticton in the sunny Okanagan.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Making it a clean sweep for the Okanagan today, I'd like the House to help me welcome the mayor of Kelowna, Dale Hammill, and of course the city manager, Stewart Fleming.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

SELECTION OF WESTERN LNG PROJECT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, I had expected a kit of information to be present on each member's desk by the time the House opened again, but something's gone wrong and they didn't get there. I'll ensure that they've either been sent to your offices or that you'll get them later today.

This has to do with a process which began just over a year ago, when we announced a major government initiative to look for ways to get the best possible use of British Columbia's surplus natural gas. An indication of the confidence felt by industry towards investment here in British Columbia is the fact that the proposals we received as a result of that initiative, which was taken last June, requested the use of some 900 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year. Although we have a substantial — as resource. we knew from the beginning that it wouldn't be enough to meet the needs of all the projects which were proposed.

Therefore we had to begin a process which would involve a couple of individual phases to identify, first of all, that surplus in a scientific way. and to develop ways in which we can continue to identify the surplus over the years. We appointed Dr. George Govier. a highly qualified commissioner, to do the evaluation and assessment of that part of the process. Thanks to Dr. Govier's report. which was accepted by the government about a month ago, we now have a clear and concise assessment of our natural gas resource and its potential in the coming decades. The information presented played a key role in us making the decisions that we have made public today.

Four types of projects for the use of that identified gas were proposed: liquefied natural gas exports, increased pipeline exports to the United States, ammonia-urea fertilizer manufacturing and projects involving ethane-based petrochemicals.

A part of the report — in fact, perhaps the major determinant in the report for the development of future surpluses — was that drilling activity must be expanded in British Columbia if those surpluses are to be achieved. Dr. Govier said that the surplus in 1990 would be 800 billion cubic feet if 100 wells per year were drilled. three trillion cubic feet if 300 wells per year were drilled. and 3.7 trillion feet in the event that 400 wells per year are drilled. We had to make a judgment on which of those scenarios to use in order to determine, A hat we would use as a surplus determination in accepting these projects. In the judgment of cabinet, we believe that using, a 300-well scenario as the basis for determining the surplus is both realistic and prudent, and that comes after taking a very careful look at the historical pattern of drilling in this province. Based on that kind of an anticipated drilling program, we've established the available surplus at three tcf. based on the 300-well-per- year case, as an allocation for 1990.

That then led to the allocation of that three trillion cubic feet of gas. In order to meet our needs of diversification, as well as a maximum economic return. we've developed a strategy with three major components. First of all, there's a commitment to the major new market for LNG of sufficient B.C. gas to ensure that the governments of Canada, Japan, Korea and Alberta recognize that we have a serious commitment to this new market for surplus Canadian gas, and a continuation and expansion of pipeline sales into the United States beyond the current licence-expiry date of 1989, and a

[ Page 8804 ]

firm allocation of a 20-year supply of natural gas to an ammonia-urea plant in the province.

Last month when we released the surplus report, I indicated that we would soon be able to announce the LNG projects which best fit British Columbia's requirements. I'd like to say first, though, that the proposals for ammonia-urea, which need much smaller natural gas volumes, will have significant impacts in terms of their employment and related industrial benefits, and we are encouraging those programs to go ahead as quickly as possible. I might mention that the level of federal tax on feedstock is proving to be a major inhibitor to these projects proceeding.

As well, ethane-based petrochemical projects offer even greater major, future potential for British Columbia in terms of job creation and industrial activity. While those plants are not at their most economically viable stage right now due to the federal taxes, the economic downturn and the restricted supply of ethane feedstock, we intend to pursue discussions with the two consortiums which have proposed petrochemical projects to determine their prospects for the future as well. I and other members of the government shall be taking up the question of the inhibiting tax with the federal government over the ensuing months.

As most members will know, three proposals were made for the export of LNG to Japan and Korea. They were the Western LNG Project, headed by Dome Petroleum, the Rim Gas Project, headed by Petro-Canada Exploration, and the Transpac Project, proposed and headed by Carter Energy Ltd. We had to look at a number of things in making our choice, including return to the province on the volumes of natural gas committed to the projects, market, production economics, financing, location, procurement, jobs, environment and other matters.

I am pleased to announce today that the government of British Columbia has selected the Western LNG Project, led by Dome Petroleum, as the project it supports. The Western LNG Project has as its members Dome Petroleum, NIC Resources Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissho Iwai of Japan, Nova, An Alberta Corporation, and TransCanada Pipelines. It's a $1.7 billion project, which includes a $1.14 billion liquefaction plant and a $550 million pipeline from northeast B.C. to Prince Rupert.

The preferred location, which has not yet been fully settled, is Grassy Point near Prince Rupert. Construction could start in the spring of 1983, with first shipments of LNG to Japan in 1986, and full production by 1989. Direct construction will approach 10,000 man-years, with a peak construction workforce of 1,300. The operating labour force will total 112, including 60 plant employees, 32 tugboat workers and 20 pipeline employees. Payroll during construction will be approximately $58 million per year.

The Western LNG project has signed contracts with five Japanese utility companies for a 20-year period, and Japanese government approvals are in place to import the gas. Financing for the project has been secured in Japan at very favourable rates.

Mr. Speaker, in direct dollar benefits to British Columbia for the package which we've outlined for the members here today, the U.S. pipeline exports over the period 1990 to 1999 will mean $6 billion. The Dome LNG project, over the life of that project from 1986 to the year 2005, will mean, in direct dollar benefits, not including construction or operation of the plant and marine facilities, $3.5 billion.

There is only one other item that the members of this House would like to know at this point — and of course there will be opportunities for questions as time goes on — and that is that there was one concern that the government of British Columbia had with regard to the consortium which was chosen, headed by Dome Petroleum. While it was almost fully a Canadian consortium, there were no active British Columbia partners involved in the consortium. I approached Dome Petroleum and its partners with the suggestion and encouragement that they look for some active British Columbia participation in this project. At a press conference this morning, Mr. Bill Richards, the president and chief executive officer of Dome Petroleum, confirmed that he was following my encouragement and had in fact talked to British Columbia participants and in effect told the press that there will be a British Columbia partner in this project.

MR. D'ARCY: I would like to make a few points in reply to that rather lengthy ministerial statement. First of all, in his report Dr. Govier indicated not that there were copious amounts of gas available for these export projects, but rather that the potential was there if economic conditions warranted it. We would point out that we must be concerned about sufficient gas in the immediate future for British Columbians. The actions of that minister and that government have not served to be conducive to warranting a supply of gas both to this plant and for the needs of British Columbia. In particular, a bill was recently passed in this House which, if anything, is going to make it very difficult for the industry to produce the amount of gas this plant needs.

I would like to point out that the selection process for a project of this size must not only be fair; it must appear to be fair. I would like to ask why the government is afraid of some kind of open, expert scrutiny of the different projects. When the minister announced that Dome and its consortium were getting the project, I noted there was a great deal of approval from the other side. Personally, I have nothing for or against Dome's proposal; however, I also have nothing for or against the Carter or Petro-Canada proposals. I would like to know why there apparently seems to be some preference given, without any facts known, to the proposal by Dome Petroleum. When we're dealing with such a large amount of a valuable non-renewable petrochemical resource, I cannot understand why there has been no open scrutiny of the factors going into the selection process. Indeed, the government may well have made the right decision. But I think that the people of B.C., who own the resource, should have had an opportunity for open scrutiny of why that decision was being made.

My final point is that while it's encouraging to hear the minister state that the project is going to go ahead, that the financing is in place, and that B.C. Jobs and companies will be protected, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the minister is a politician, and that we have heard politicians from that party make all kinds of similar announcements in recent years about how projects were going to go ahead, how B.C. Jobs were going to be protected, only to find out that it was so much wind. Again, I would like to see an independent statement from reputable members of the financial community — indeed, from professionals rather than politicians — that the financing is in fact in place, and that B.C. Jobs and companies are going to be involved and the interests of British Columbia are going to be protected.

[ Page 8805 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would commend to the House as a practice that ministerial statements, which are not permitted by leave but by right, and which always result in a reply, also by right, ought to be heard without interruption. They usually involve some major announcement; therefore both the statement and the reply should be heard without interruption.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAILWAY BORROWING

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It's the same question I've asked on two separate occasions, both in the House and outside the House, of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I presume the Minister of Finance is prepared to answer it.

B.C. Rail signed short-term notes for the construction of the Anzac rail line. These notes, due on July 2, total $87 million. Can the minister advise whether those notes have been redeemed by B.C. Rail? Can the minister advise whether those notes have been rolled over into further short-term debt, or are they being capitalized into the long-term debt of the company?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was prepared to answer the question yesterday, but the member was not in his seat at the appropriate time during question period. I'm happy to respond today.

The member will recall, I'm sure, that during the 1981 legislative session, B.C. Rail's borrowing and authorized capital stock limits were increased to facilitate financing of the construction of the rail component of the great northeast coal project. Then, by an order-in-council which was approved and ordered last September 24, B.C. Rail was authorized to borrow the sum of $325 million through the issuance of notes for the purpose of constructing the Tumbler Ridge branch line. The notes are issuable at any time for a term not later than March 31, 1983. The $87 million in rail notes due July 2, to which the member has referred on two or three occasions, were issued under that authority. The notes were redeemed on July 2 and replaced by a note due August 3, 1982. The amount of the replacement note is $112 million, representing the $87 million in borrowings up to March 31, 1982, and a further $25 million borrowed between April I and July 2, the date referred to earlier. This is an interim measure pending the outcome of final discussions on financing arrangements with B.C. Rail.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and I have met on several occasions in recent months with officials and members of the board of directors of the British Columbia Railway, and those negotiations with respect to the ultimate disposition of these notes will be resolved with the railway. But the discussions are ongoing, and I cannot therefore contemplate what will occur in the final instance.

The member also asked a supplementary question on B.C. Rail's application of the $45 million provincial government payment which was made at the end of the last fiscal year — that is, '81-82. As I've indicated on previous occasions outside the House, it is up to the railway rather than the government to decide how these funds are recorded.

Mr. Speaker, in focusing on the relatively narrow part of northeast coal, I hope the member appreciates that this is one of the most exciting projects in the province's history, and undoubtedly some expenditures are going to be incurred which will have to be capitalized. The fact remains that that member has been asking largely just about the B.C. Rail aspect of a very large, complex and exciting ongoing project in the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: In answer to my question, the minister has said that there are ongoing discussions, that some expenditures will have to be capitalized. Unless my hearing is wrong — and it isn't wrong — this government, through that minister, promised it would be pay as you go. Is the minister now indicating to this House that it is no longer the policy of this government that the construction of the Anzac line will be pay as you go? Will he now admit to the House that there is going to be a long-term debt burden on B.C. Rail as a result of the Anzac line?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, the member's conclusion is incorrect, and it also asks about future government policy.

I have indicated that because of the importance of the B.C. Rail component in northeast coal, as any reasonable member of this House would expect, there are discussions between the minister responsible in this Legislature for the British Columbia Railway Company and the Minister of Finance. Those are ongoing discussions.

SMALL BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask this question in the midst of economic panacea and euphoria, but figures from the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs released yesterday show that for the first six months of 1982, B.C. business bankruptcies rose by 70 percent over the same period last year, while the Canadian average was running at 36.9 percent. To this date, some 422 B.C. businesses have declared bankruptcy.

Has the minister decided to offer relief to these businesses and potential bankruptcy victims by establishing a program similar to section 11 of the American bankruptcy code, which would give small business interests in the province the opportunity to have a government-approved assessor review businesses, make assessments and report back to the courts before legal bankruptcy procedures take place? This question is to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult when one does not know — and there were interjections — to which minister the member is directing a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would repeat the question.

MR. LEA: No, I won't repeat it all.

Has the Minister of Finance decided to help small- and medium-sized businesses in this province? Has the government decided to bring in something similar to section 11 of the American bankruptcy code, so that at least those businesses will have an opportunity to have a government or an independent assessor take a look at the particular business before allowing bankruptcy to go through.

[ Page 8806 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there has been a clear indication, from the time that the Premier announced on February 18 the restraint of government program, through the budget and a variety of debates which have occurred, that this government is doing a great deal for small business in British Columbia.

I also would observe, Mr. Speaker, that the second part of the question relates to future government policy. Discussions are continuing with respect to additional ways in which we can assist employees, employers, individuals and firms in the province of British Columbia in what is admittedly recognized as a difficult world recession.

MR. LEA: With B.C. bankruptcies up 70 percent over the same period last year under the economic policy of this government, I'd like to ask the same minister: will you please stop doing things for small business? We can't afford it.

EMERGENCY BUDGET

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The minister is reported to have admitted to his cabinet colleagues that, as the opposition forecast in April, current revenues are substantially less than budget forecasts, and that a turnaround in the fall will not materialize. Inasmuch as the minister has been voicing these dark hints to selected members of the media, is he now prepared to present to this House revised revenue estimates and prospects for the economy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I gather the question is based on news reports. I hope no one is offended when one asks if it was the same news report which indicated that the cabinet met until dawn the other day, when in fact the meeting concluded at about 11 p.m.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, you heard the preamble, and I think the minister heard the question. The question was: is he now prepared to present revised revenue estimates and prospects for the future to this House?

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

MR. STUPICH: The Premier is reported to have recently told a group of government officials that there may be tremendous chops in whole programs. Has the Minister of Finance decided to announce in this House what further cutbacks in government programs will be implemented to rescue the minister's sagging budget?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question is based on supposition, and I am unable to answer it.

INCREASE IN JAILINGS
DUE TO ECONOMIC RECESSION

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Attorney-General. Because of widespread unemployment in the province of British Columbia, a great many people are going to jail because either they can't pay a fine or it's such a hardship that they elect to go to jail in place of the fine. The figures indicate that the number of people in jail is up about 25 percent for short-term offences. These are mostly poor people. Has the minister decided to increase such things as the police crime-prevention units or the community accountability panel experiments, such as at Cedar Lodge? The policy of fining people according to their means, rather than a standard fine, taken up through the Judicial Council....What are you doing about it? It's costing a heck of a lot of money; it's also an injustice.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I regret to say that the member's question is based upon some rather questionable statistics. We have been monitoring the effect of the present economy upon actions in the courts, and appropriate actions are being taken to ensure that the people who are incarcerated are afforded every opportunity to take alternative programs.

CUTBACKS IN HEALTH CARE

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that his restraint program imposed on our major hospitals has cut operating-room use and is resulting in longer elective-surgery waiting lists? I can give him a number of examples, but I think he knows about them as well as I do.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: I don't have all those statistics immediately available. Whether one can directly associate the number of surgical procedures which may have taken place over the past few months with respect to the similar number at the similar period of time last year would necessitate a study by people in the ministry. I'd be pleased to try to get the statistics from this year and last year to determine if the member's suggestion is correct or valid.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, perhaps I could respond to some questions taken as notice yesterday from a number of members, information which has been made available.

During question period yesterday, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brought to the attention of the House a news report with respect to Jamey Woollard, a six year-old youngster with Perthes' disease, who requires rehabilitation treatment. Yesterday afternoon I spoke to the administrator of the Children's Hospital, John Tegenfeldt. He confirmed the following information. Jamey had been scheduled to be admitted to the new Children's Hospital on Monday, July 5. The administrator advised me that due to a flood of emergency admissions that day, they were unable to admit Jamey. I'm told that Jamey's physician advised that if the boy's admission was delayed for a short period of time, it would not affect his condition. This was confirmed by Mr. Tegenfeldt. I'm pleased to report to the House that I think before the questions were asked arrangements had been made by the hospital for the admission of the youngster on July 18, when he's due to receive the necessary treatment, provided there are no other complications.

Subsequent to the question from the member for New Westminster, there were other questions from other members.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) referred to the case of a 13-year-old girl, reported to be suffering from a severe hearing disability. Upon looking at the Blues, I found that the member did not provide me with the patient's or physician's names, so we were unable to check out the matter.

The member asked: "Has the minister decided to restore funding to the investigatory unit for learning disabilities at

[ Page 8807 ]

the new Children's Hospital?" I believe the member refers to the investigatory unit for learning disabilities, which my staff believes is actually the clinical investigation unit. The staff checked with the Children's Hospital to determine whether the program has been cancelled. We're informed that there are eight beds currently operating in the unit. If the patients' conditions are serious, they would definitely be admitted; if elective, they would be admitted as soon as possible. Mr. Tegenfeldt, the administrator, went on to say that no outpatient hearing programs have been cut. Although there is a waiting list, this is not due to any cutbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I was asked by the member for New Westminster about the family and children's unit at the Eric Martin Pavilion. The member stated: "As a result of budget cuts, the Royal Jubilee Hospital board is forced to shut down the family and children's unit at the Eric Martin Pavilion. In view of the fact that no alternative facility remains on the Island, has the minister now decided to restore funding for that vital service?" Yesterday, I suggested that the member for New Westminster may be incorrect in his statement that the unit had been closed. Today, after having checked with staff, the information was provided that the unit is not closed. The program referred to....

MR. COCKE: Was cut in half.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yesterday he said it was closed; now he says it's cut in half. It now operates around the clock five days a week with six beds. Children return home on the weekend on temporary passes. In addition, the operational audit being conducted at the Royal Jubilee Hospital will examine the program's operation to determine whether any improvements can be made. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the ministry has approved the planning of a 25-bed child and adolescent unit at the Queen Alexandra solarium. The unit is not closed. The member was confusing it with some other unit.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) also had a health matter brought to her attention yesterday. The member referred to an eleven-year-old girl currently at the Ministry of Health's Maples unit in Burnaby. The member pointed out that The Maples has been designated for twelve year-olds and older. In this case a deliberate exception was made to place the youngster in that facility. Staff investigated the case and have provided some information. The child in question is currently undergoing a 30-day assessment, which will be completed July 18. Pending the resolution of the assessment, no determination has been made as to what treatment will be provided. If the assessment indicates that treatment is required, the staff have assured me that the treatment will be provided at The Maples or at another suitable facility.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 66.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will come to order: the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will follow suit.

UTILITIES COMMISSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, during the course of second reading on this bill I asked the minister.... I'm hesitating because I do want the minister's attention on this particular question. I know he's busy.

The minister had a press conference this morning and announced a number of major projects and selection of the LNG plant location and all of these things. As anticipated, he failed to mention a date or a commissioner under this act which we're now discussing to be named to look at the possibility and to come down with recommendations on a proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island and a fertilizer plant complex proposed by a consortium of companies for the Powell River area, which I happen to represent. Under this section, which will allow the minister to appoint a commissioner, can he tell us if he has decided on the name of a commissioner? And when will he be announcing the appointment of that commissioner and the commission to look at the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I would advise all members again that the debate must be strictly relevant under the standing orders which guide us in committee.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer an), differently than during second reading of the bill when the same question came up. This bill, when it's enacted, will allow us to appoint a single commissioner. It's my preference at the present time that a single commissioner be appointed for the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. I said, when we announced the public hearings would be held, that we would expect that the appointment would be made this summer, and I intend that it will. We will make the appointment. I would hope, within the next two weeks, and then it would be up to the commissioner chosen to decide on his next course of action.

Sections 2 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat concerned that the flexibility given the minister under this section, to vary conditions after a process of approval of an energy project or an energy project removal certificate has gone ahead, creates a situation where, as we have often claimed about this government in this House, they can change the Ground rules in the middle or even at the end. They can move the goalposts. We have made the point, and industry has made the point, on many occasions that before industry or

[ Page 8808 ]

even a public corporation such as B.C. Hydro can properly commit huge amounts of capital — which will be captive, I might point out — to any major energy project, they need to have some assurance that the rules are not going to be changed at the last minute. This section gives a great deal of discretion to that minister and that government or to some future government to make arbitrary changes in the conditions of approval, and we oppose this. We think it's an ill thought-out section and changes should be made in it.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make another point. It will be brief, and you may consider it not strictly relevant, but I'm hoping you're not going to notice. I need to make it under one of these sections and I'm choosing to do it under section 12. When a major corporation — the one I want to bring to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, is B.C. Hydro — goes ahead with the preliminary work on a major project, whether it be Hat Creek, Site C or the Murphy Creek project in my own constituency, or the Stikine proposals and so forth, in preparation for going to the Utilities Commission with a project proposal, they must do a great deal of preliminary work. Many of the objections against B.C. Hydro and government policy that we hear in the province today at the local level come from people who say: "There are surveyors and drillers; seismic surveys are going on, other resource values are being interfered with, and there's no public body that other industries and private individuals — owners of land, farmers, and so forth — can go to and have some conditions spelled out, or get a public hearing." I would like the minister to consider making a change that would require a major corporation, when doing the preliminary work, to go before a simple panel of the Utilities Commission to lay down the basic ground rules of those investigations. Only this morning I received three telephone complaints from the residential communities of Oasis and Rivervale, immediately to the north of Trail, about drilling and seismic work by Hydro and their contractors for the Murphy Creek proposal.

In the interests of the public, and in the political interests of this government or some future government, there should be some way for the public to express their concerns before the Utilities Commission when a corporation is going ahead with investigations into whether or not they should apply for a project approval certificate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd be happy to consider that, Mr. Chairman. I see a lot of problems in attempting to hold public hearings at a time when there is necessarily no information available. If that kind of hearing was very restricted I suppose it could be done, but I see a lot of difficulties with it.

I would just remind the member that all of the normal statutes already on the books apply to B.C. Hydro when it's doing any preliminary work of this kind — the Water Act, the Land Act. The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing getting involved with access in one of the northern developments just recently is proof that Hydro doesn't have a free reign to do whatever it wishes. It must comply with whatever statutes are available and on the books at the present time. But we'll take that as a fair comment and give it further consideration.

On the other question relevant to the section regarding the delegation of powers, we're not widening that very much. Anything that is spelled out in this amendment has to be spelled out in the certificate, which is issued to the proponent as well. In other words, the proponent will get his certificate, which will say that in certain circumstances those terms and conditions may need to be varied. But the limits will be spelled out in the certificate so that the proponent knows, not exactly what might come up, but that if something special comes up, such as an urgent pollution problem during construction, or a safety hazard during construction, we could move in and say: "We're going to vary that certificate — within the limits of the certificate that you already have." That will all be spelled out. It will only allow us the opportunity to make some variances in it.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister states that normal statutes do apply to B.C. Hydro. Of course they do. The point we're making is that the normal statutes simply aren't sufficient, I think no one who has not experienced having a major corporation simply move on to their property — in their front gate, their back yard — can properly understand what I'm talking about. There are cases, particularly with Murphy Creek, where drilling, blasting and seismic work are going on virtually within the residentially settled city limits.

If this were taking place in the middle of Point Grey or West Vancouver or, quite frankly, in downtown Tsawwassen, I think you would have some complaints. That's what I'm bringing to the attention of the minister. I'm not suggesting that we have a complicated bureaucracy to delay work which may be necessary. In fact, I would point out to the minister, as I'm sure he well knows, that we already have a project impact committee in place particularly in the Trail area, which has Hydro representation on it, representation from the general community and appointees from the regional district of Kootenay boundary.

What people really want is some place they can go, a place with some authority, when they have a complaint. They don't necessarily want to prevent the operations; they want some way to air their concerns about somebody driving a Cat through a creek which supplies their water, for instance; or somebody cutting down trees which they planted in their garden and have spent many years watching grow. Those are the concerns that we want to express to the minister. We're not asking for a bureaucracy; we're simply saying that the general public would like some bureau or body to go to. In my view, that body's already in place. What we need is some requirement that Hydro listen to the concerns of that body.

Sections 12 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's kind of a waste of time to talk about consolidations, mergers, and the acquisition of shares in a public utility when this allowed Inland Natural Gas to be raided. Then they bring in a bill to correct the situation. It's just fine for future raids, but it does nothing to protect the consumers of Inland Natural Gas.

It was a totally preordained situation. The government and the minister knew about this takeover a long time ago. About Christmas of last year, they knew that Jim Anderson and Ben Macdonald, without putting up a red cent of their own, were going to take over one of the major natural gas distributing utilities in the province of British Columbia. We knew that their partner was Trans Mountain Pipe Line, and that they were going to do a pretty good job of raiding the treasury of that company along the way and getting them to put up the financial pokey and give the necessary guarantees with the result that that company was going to be badly

[ Page 8809 ]

damaged. Imperial has already sold out of it and the others are trying to.

The government and the minister knew all this. They pretended to fight it, but when the facts came to light that these were Social Credit bagmen, that both Anderson and Macdonald were raiding this thing for their own purposes. not in the interests of the gas consumers of British Columbia.... When that came to light publicly, the minister made an announcement: "The Attorney-General will intervene." But that was a farce. That announcement was made before April 2 of this year, and the commission adjourned the hearing that they had called publicly on April 2 without giving objectors a chance to point out that once again you've let the horse escape the barn and run on the hills before you close the gate.

It was farce. It was a Social Credit takeover plot right from the beginning, as a reward to political friends. The thing is laughable. It's straight Laurel and Hardy stuff in any explanation. It's stupid.

An order-in-council was passed on April 15: don't transfer shares. The boys had already transferred their shares; they had taken control of the utility. Now you bring in a bill and make it retroactive — to when? July 9, just enough so you won't affect this takeover.

You've got a public utilities commission, which held a hearing.... And I can't fault them. They held a good hearing. Do you know the conclusions they came to? They came to the conclusions that the thing was irreversible; there was nothing they could do about it. That's on page 27 of their report. They came to the conclusion that it s not in the public interest, but we can't do anything about it. They came to this conclusion:

"It is readily understandable how the steady income of a utility can be attractive in order to finance real estate development and stabilize the cyclical nature of those operations. The commission believes that the interests of the controlling shareholders of TMA" — that's Anderson and Macdonald; 75 percent Anderson, 25 percent for poor Ben — "whose principal activity at present is real estate development and other non-utility ventures, could be in conflict with the objectives of a public utility."

So they've said you've sold out the consumers of natural gas of the province of British Columbia to your political friends. They've said it in nice language. They've said they're going to use that company for their real estate developments, and I'll go further and say that they'll use it also for Sun Mask Petroleum, where the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) has 50,000 escrow shares....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, get on your feet and say what it is. He has 50,000 shares in escrow, a close association with Jim Anderson. You're the Deputy Speaker of the House, and you've just sold out the consumers. The commission says the thing is not in the public interest, and you've done nothing about it. The thing has just slowly come down the line so that you can reward political friends. The commission has said it, if you don't believe me. They've said they're going to use this Inland Natural Gas for their real estate developments. Then they say: "We will not give our approval." But they already have 93 percent of the shares and have registered — what is it? — 35 percent. They can register up to 50 percent and keep the others in their pocket, if they like, and it makes no difference. They get the dividends on them; they've got control.

No government, Mr. Chairman — I won't say the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) at this point — can blunder quite that badly. You can't. There's got to be a dark design there, and the thing just unfolded as planned. Do you know what the next stage of the plan is going to be? If this gang opposite wins the next election, they'll give them the gas division of B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What a screwball!

MR. MACDONALD: Everything I've said so far has come true, day after day. Don't think that you won't try to — what's that ugly word? — privatize the gas division of B.C. Hydro too. That's the next step. It's been a series of incomprehensible — but really comprehensible — blunders, pursuant to a dark design, and it's been funny.

How much did it cost the Utilities Commission to hold these hearings to reach a conclusion that they won't approve the takeover when the boys have taken it over already and you can't reverse it? Is it a charade or public entertainment, taking the time of learned counsel and all that? That order-incouncil — what a joke!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Do you call yourself "learned counsel"?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I don't have to be learned to see through this thing and to see what's going on. It's just ridiculous to gut a public utility and allow it to be used as a goblet to be drained for other purposes.

Get up on your feet now. Mr. Minister, and tell me that you're going to apply this legislation in such a way as to honour the decision of the Utilities Commission. All you have to do is backdate that to July 9. Tell me why it's July 9. Why isn't it April 2? That's another section, but we're talking about the application of this thing.

I think this is the most ridiculous sellout of government. Who's going to pay for the incidental speculators who picked up money along the, way as the boys bid $20 that was not going to be put up by them, and the people who got the buzz, like R.J. Bennett the Premier's brother, who buys in and makes n $5 a share for 6,000 shares — he and his family? hat's that? It's only $30,000. Who pays that in the long run You don't have somebody making money and nobody paying for it. Who pays? I'll give you three guesses, and the answer is that the natural gas consumers of the province of British Columbia — residential, industrial and commercial — will pay for it. Nobody else. Maybe Jim Anderson is going to pa for it. Nonsense! This is a corporate raid, and your next step is going to be to deal with Hydro if you're ever re-elected. It's time that we got rid of this government. I

HON. MR McCLELLAND: I guess all I have to do is to remind the House that the member making those irresponsible statements is a member of the same party which houses the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who makes wildly irresponsible statements that throw the stockmarket....

[ Page 8810 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the minister has trespassed into an entirely different area. Let him answer this case and not make these smear remarks.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I know how touchy the members opposite are about the irresponsibility of their actions in the last few weeks; so touchy, in fact, that they shipped the member for Vancouver Centre off to Europe for a month so the people of British Columbia couldn't see him anymore.

Here are the problems, and I admit that we were dealing with a piece of deficient legislation which just happened to be passed by the former NDP government when that member who just took his seat was the minister responsible for the act. We have taken steps to change it. We made the mistake of not changing NDP legislation in time to be able to deal with this matter in a little better way.

I'd like to answer a couple of the questions regarding the matter of this section as it relates to the takeover of Inland Gas by TMA Western Resources. I don't know whether the member has read all of the decision or not, or whether he's just read the parts that titillate his imagination. But the commission has done a splendid job in this matter. I believe they have set the stage so that the public interest will be protected under the terms of the amendment which is now before this House.

Frankly, I find retroactive legislation abhorrent. I do not like it, and I will not be part of it — especially in the area of investment confidence and investment opportunity in British Columbia.

The commission in making its decision has set out a number of conditions within its decision, including the requirement that the company as it is presently structured not dilute the consumers' interest in Inland Natural Gas by entering into other non-utility areas such as real estate — as the member points out. The commission says that it is in the public interest that shares of a public utility be widely held, even though that's a condition which is changing rapidly across North America. In British Columbia we don't want that change to take place — hence the reasons that we're putting forth this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the commission has served notice that major items of interest that will impact on the consumers of Inland Natural Gas are met, including the way in which interest deductions are made, newly created debt, FIRA approval, organizational structures, sound management continuation of Inland and all of those other reasons contained within that decision. They're all there.

MR. MACDONALD: They are not.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, they are. I wish that member would read the decision very carefully and understand what will happen, and consider the section of this bill we are presently considering which deals with consolidation, amalgamation and merger. Should anything under this section affect the status quo within those terms of reference, the company will come under the control of the commission. Future activities will be fully regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. We chose July 9 as the date, because that was the date the bill was introduced into the House.

I know that member is not really interested in understanding the facts in this case. But I get a little tired of members in this House carrying on personal vendettas and personal attacks, not only on people who don't have the opportunity to respond for themselves, but more importantly within the confines of this House where they have full immunity for the things they say. If that second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is accusing me of using my political influence or position to reward political friends, I dare you, Mr. Member, to say that outside the House. I'll have my lawyer in your office this afternoon. I'll sue you if you're making that kind of charge, and I would expect that other people in this House might want to do the same thing. But you haven't got the nerve to make that kind of charge outside this House, because you know you can't back it up, and you haven't got the guts to go to court. But make it, Mr. Member, and I'll sue you immediately.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there are such things as legislatures. Part of the duty of a legislator is to speak up freely, without having to go through lawyers, courts and all that kind of thing. Why do you think there is legislative immunity? It's so that these things can be said. Can I prove what the minister did on such and such a date? I didn't say I could.

You have lain down before this application, done nothing, and allowed it to stream right along. Talk about the legislation of the NDP There's nothing wrong with the section, had you moved in time. But whenever a time limit came to stop this transaction you moved a few days too late. Come on! Why are you not making this July 9?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is July 9.

MR. MACDONALD: Whether you and I go into court has got nothing to do with it. What has got a lot to do with it is the interests of the gas consumers of British Columbia, and you've sold them out. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I went before the commission, and I've spoken publicly on this matter. I don't think anything I've said has been seriously challenged.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It wasn't worth challenging, the stuff you peddled.

MR. MACDONALD: It's just peddling, eh?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: You just think it's a funny thing that....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think it's a cheap political trick.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, maybe it's time that we reminded ourselves of the "strictly relevant" clause. We're dealing with section 19 of the act. I would ask both the member speaking and the minister to contain their remarks specifically to section 19.

MR. MACDONALD: What's the use of having this kind of thing? This minister is the one who said there were welfare people in the Empress Hotel. You should have your mouth washed out with soap and water. You said it in this House too. This is not personal. This is about the future of the gas consumers in this province.

[ Page 8811 ]

You go off on a whole bunch of tangents. You said the commission had imposed conditions on this thing, and I asked: "Where? What page?" I referred you to their decision, starting on page 28, where they say: "We are not imposing conditions." Of course they're still a regulated utility in the future. But they say this takeover has happened, and there's nothing we can do about it, that it's against the public interest. And you let it happen.

I don't know whether there's anything else worth replying to. I think it's a sad day for British Columbia when this kind of thing.... You say it's a personal attack. Why should I bother replying to that kind of thing? There are times in a Legislature when you have to bring out what's happening in the province. I do that, and I'm not going to be afraid of doing it.

I say you've allowed a small group, led by Macdonald and Anderson, to raid this utility. You could have stopped it. You had lots of opportunity; you didn't stop it. I say it's going to be a bad day for the people of this province who use natural gas; they're going to pay for it through their natural gas rates. They've been sold out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That member is attempting to frighten the public of British Columbia in the same way the member for Vancouver Centre did with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce statements that he made. The public will be protected by this act, particularly by this section. I'd advise him to read the section heading again; it is "Consolidation, amalgamation and merger." It will provide for full public review and control of the regulated utility — and you admit that it's a regulated utility — and there will not be an opportunity for the consumers of Inland Natural Gas to be disbenefited by any takeover, merger or operation at any time. Our Utilities Commission will not allow the consumers of Inland Natural Gas to be hurt in this matter. They will not be hurt. The conditions are there and available for us to continue those reviews under this new section of the act, and that will be done without fear or favour.

I'd like to point out again that the immunity of this House doesn't allow a member to make any kind of irresponsible statement he wishes, nor to hide behind what may be libel. I take very seriously the indication, the hint, that I have done something wrong and benefited from — ny political position or had someone else benefit from my political position. I say again: if that member ever said that outside this House, I would take immediate action.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not intimidated in the slightest. I've talked about what I believe has happened in this case. I'm not going to let the minister put words into my mouth; I'll make my own speeches, thank you very much. The fact is that up till now.... You have a commission which says: "In view of the whole thing, we cannot conclude that the applicant's plans are in the public interest. The commission therefore declines to approve the application" — because they could not do anything about it. They could do nothing about it because the Attorney-General intervened too late and the minister did nothing. That's where it sits. When we have that happening in the past, what can we expect to happen in the future?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't want to involve myself in this particular debate, but the suggestion from the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that the Attorney-General acted too late cannot stand unchallenged. He is placing in Hansard, the record of this committee, the most irresponsible, ill-informed claptrap that I've ever heard from him in all the time he's been in this House.

The legislation which has been in this province for decades, which was in the Energy Act which he introduced and passed and which we unfortunately followed, gives only one control, and that is to prevent the transfer of majority shares. That's all that is does, and the member knows that. If he doesn't then he'd better take some legal advice. It has nothing to do with acquisition of shares at all. This legislation which we're bringing in will have something to do with the acquisition of shares, but the legislation that you brought in deals only with transfer of shares. You can buy all you want, but you can't transfer more than a majority; that requires an application to the Utilities Commission.

The Attorney-General, on behalf of the province of British Columbia and the people of this province, intervened as soon as the application was made to the Utilities Commission for that kind of approval. We were there every day, not just one day, Mr. Member, when you went there and made your political speech; not just one day when you had to acknowledge to the members of the commission: "Well, after all, I guess I'm the father of this legislation, or maybe its grandfather." You were embarrassed before the commission, because you had to admit that it was your legislative precedent that they were wrestling with.

I'll get you the transcript of your cheeky, silly remarks before the commission. To suggest that the Attorney-General didn't respond in a timely fashion is just not what the record shows. My counsel was there every day up to and including the final submissions, and you were not. You haven't even taken the time to study the legislation or the report of the commission in the light of that legislation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: The Attorney-General of British Columbia doesn't know what he's talk-me about. You said you were going to intervene before April, before the boys had acquired majority shares. Your counsel didn't even turn up on April 2, at which time you could have stopped the transaction before it was too late. The offer to take up the shares was then extended to midnight of April 13-14 and what happened? You passed a silly, ridiculous order-in-council, one of the worst that's ever come out of the Attorney-General's ministry, on April 15. Now come on. Instead of all these personal attacks.... I'm just pointing out that you blundered. When the Utilities Commission called a formal meeting on April 2 before the majority of the shares had been acquired by these people, why didn't your counsel appear on April 2? I did. At the later hearing it was too late; the commission has said so. There's egg all over your face. This government knew what it was doing the whole way through.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member always places his own interpretation upon circumstances, even when he's wrong. He talked about acquisitions in his remarks a few moments ago, and he knows this legislation does nothing with respect to the acquisition of shares. Our legislation will.

Yes. April 2 was the day set for the hearing, and the applicant requested an adjournment. We were advised of it. We could be reached by telephone. You didn't know about it, but you turned up. You filed your so-called statement on

[ Page 8812 ]

April 2. Counsel wasn't there because counsel was advised by the commission that an application for the adjournment of the hearing had taken place and had been granted. That's why the Attorney-General's counsel wasn't there, but he was there from the very moment that the hearings began, every day, until they were ended.

MR. MACDONALD: He was there when it was too late, when they had acquired the shares. Had the hearing and the application for the consent of the Utilities Commission gone ahead on April 2 as scheduled, they would not have acquired them before the commission had said one way or the other whether it was in the public interest. You fumbled. That hearing should have gone ahead. You got a phone call saying the hearing for April 2 was going to be cancelled. It's a formal notice, an order of the commission and published in the newspapers, and you get a phone call and your counsel, on your instructions — I don't hold counsel responsible; Mr. Edwards is a good lawyer; I hold the government responsible — doesn't even show up. You don't say: "Well, that's strange. Are the boys reshuffling or do they want to get the shares in their pocket before the commission has a chance to say yes or no?" That's what happened, and you just let it happen.

The final hearing was a charade, and the commission has said in its report that it's powerless. On April 2, Mr. Attorney-General, you should have acted; in fact, you should have acted before then, but on April 2 they hadn't acquired those majority shares and you could have stopped it and you didn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As usual, the member is dissembling. I say again, the legislation in this province, up until the time when we pass this bill, gives the government and the commission no power at all with respect to the acquisition of shares, and until an application is before that commission for approval of a transfer of shares, which must come after application — even a first-year law student knows that, Mr. Member — there can be no application before the commission. So I say again, don't try to mislead the people in this assembly or the people who read Hansard when you talk about acquisitions, because the legislation which we had, which followed legislation which you introduced, gave us no authority over share acquisitions at all.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if the hearing had gone ahead on April 2, and the Attorney-General's counsel had taken that position and the commission had made this finding — that it's not in the public interest — before April 14, the public wouldn't have subscribed; there wouldn't have been sales to the people; they would not have acquired the shares in the face of the opposition of the commission. But they acquired them before any decision of the commission, and when the decision of the commission came, it was too late. Don't blame the legislation; it's through your own deliberate fumbling of the ball.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not blaming the legislation. The member is now shifting his position: if it had gone ahead and if all these things had happened, the people wouldn't have acquired the shares. It just shows how little that member, who was the Attorney-General of this province, really knows about the law. TMA offered to buy the shares — that's a private transaction between TMA and the people who held the shares of Inland — and having made that offer to them, the people who held the shares were entitled to accept that offer. They did accept that offer in droves, and they had accepted them before April 2.

MR. MACDONALD: No.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, they had.

MR. MACDONALD: You don't know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Of course I know. The evidence is quite clear. April 13 was the final closing date, but there was nothing in the offer which precluded anybody from accepting the offer at any time up to April 13. So don't try to confuse the members of this committee, Mr. Member, with respect to those facts.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm quitting at this point. This fellow brings up a new thing every time. I'm just making the one final point that the majority control of the shares was acquired by the "boys" — you know whom I'm talking about — around April 15, just before the expiry of the offer, which is the usual thing in a takeover bid. Had you gone ahead on April 2, they would not have acquired those shares. You let them do it and you've got a commission that had to sit through a charade. You didn't change the legislation until now, and you make it July 9. It's just been a case where the Attorney-General has been a water boy for the government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the member does not know of what he speaks. He only discloses his ignorance with respect to corporate- takeover transactions by his very remarks....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is not out of order, Mr. Chairman. We cannot, in the course of this debate with respect to legislation which would cure the omissions of that member when he was a minister of the Crown, have it suggested that there was any failure on the part of either the Utilities Commission or of this government or of the minister in the discharge of the responsibilities which we hold with respect to the public interest of the gas users in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: I've given the Attorney-General the last word, because he has the weaker argument.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, the last word is not given because I have the weaker argument, Mr. Chairman, but because finally the second member for Vancouver East has had the good sense to recognize that what I say is correct and that the points he makes cannot be established.

MR. MACDONALD: He has forced me to my feet again. The merit of his argument is that he says that because I finally ceased, I have admitted defeat. That's so silly a thing to say that the record should be corrected, should it not, Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) ? What a ridiculous thing!

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

[ Page 8813 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions to the minister under this section. Dealing with the present, rather than what may or may not have gone on in the past. I would like to point out in reply to the minister's statement that this was some previous government's legislation, that the legislation we're dealing with to amend is the minister's own legislation, introduced and passed in this House in August of 1980. It is not legislation from some previous government. If the minister and his drafters of legislation happen to have lifted certain statutes holus-bolus from some previous edition of the RSBC, that's their business. The fact is, it's this minister's section that is being amended, not a section from some act passed by some previous government.

However, that is not a major point of concern here. What I am concerned about, particularly as I represent a riding served by Inland Natural Gas, is the statement from that Utilities Commission set up by the minister's own legislation and appointed by that minister. The commission has itself borne out the concerns about consumers' interests expressed by this side of the House and by the member for Vancouver East. That is what I'm concerned about. The commission has said that it couldn't stop the takeover, but by golly, if it could've, it sure as heck would've. The minister wants to assure the House that the public's interest has been protected all along. That's what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has been telling us as well, and that it will be protected in future. If that is the case, why is the minister's own commission telling the public that they don't believe the takeover was or is in the public interest, and they would have stopped it if they could have. Will the minister please explain that rather glaring inconsistency in his remarks to the House'?

I would like to point out that I personally — nor do we on this side of the House — do not particularly object if various takeovers and shareholders want to play games on Howe Street with common stock. That's their business. In the normal course of events and in a normal market situation, if somebody is fooling around with stock and selling apples and oranges, and the price of that commodity was artificially increased due to the games being played on Howe Street, that would be fine; some other person could come along and undercut them, someone who hadn't been playing those games. What the minister either doesn't understand or doesn't want to admit to himself is that Inland Gas, being a regulated monopoly dealing in a publicly owned petrochemical natural resource, is not in a normal situation. People in the West Kootenay and Okanagan areas, both industry and residential consumers, are not in a position to go to some other gas company. They are not in a position to use some other product.

Natural gas, as the minister well knows, is the one petrochemical resource in B.C. that is not subject to the vagaries of the oil industry — OPEC or the Seven Sisters. Notwithstanding the idiocies of those crazies down in Ottawa, it's something we control here in B.C. I am very concerned, not only for my own riding but for all of the southern interior of this province, that we not have to pay extra money for natural gas, either as residential consumers or as a cost of doing business for those industries on which we depend for our livelihood throughout that very important sector of the province.

If all is well, and if all will always be well, as the minister would have us believe, why doesn't the commission think so? They obviously don't. They say they would do something if they could; they would have done something if they could have, Why did the minister not give them the power to prevent artificially high prices to consumers due to this takeover? I personally am neither for nor against the takeover. I simply want to protect the rights of consumers and industry now and in the future.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's a perfectly logical and sensible position to take. especially as the MLA for an area that is dependent on the service of Inland Natural Gas. The power is within the act at this present time to ensure that any corporate activity by any regulated utility does not adversely impact on the commodity prices charged to the consumer. The B.C. Utilities Commission has two major responsibilities. One is to ensure that regulated utilities are allowed to remain healthy and not become a major drain on the entire economy of the province: the other is that the consumer be given the best possible service at the best possible price. That will not change: it does not require new legislation for that to happen. It's in the act, and it's always going to be in the act.

The commission did not say, that if different legislation had been in place it would have stopped this takeover. However, It did raise a number of very serious concerns about the present state of the takeover application, the future management of Inland, and its relation to the consumers in the future, and the possibility of diluting that wide ran e of share ownerships so that spinoff activity into other kinds of businesses different from regulated utilities could happen. Those are the kinds of things the commission expressed concern about. It didn't say, however, that if this legislation was in place it would have stopped it. Rather, I would expect that what the commission is saying is that they would have asked for greater proof that those conditions would all be met. We still have that opportunity, because those are the kinds of things which the commission sees could impact on the delivery of service to the customers of Inland Natural Gas and the price of the delivery of those services. We have not lost the opportunity to ensure that the customers of Inland Natural Gas and Inland Natural Gas itself are fully protected under the parameters of Lyood utility legislation.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not satisfied with the minister's answer. He has not answered the basic question of why, if all is well as lie say. the Utilities Commission said: "We recommend against approval of this takeover." I'm quite sure that the Utilities Commission has no ethical or philosophical objection to the present majority shareholders or ex-majority shareholders of Inland. What they are clearly concerned about, as the minister correctly states, is the present and future interests of consumers of natural gas under the system operated by Inland Gas. If the minister is taking the powers through this section to deal with those concerns now and forever more, so be it. But obviously the Utilities Commission is not satisfied that that is indeed what he is doing. They are not satisfied that the new owners are going to be required, through this takeover to look after the interests of the consumers of Inland Natural Gas. I would like the minister to give some legal assurances rather than his verbal assurances, as has been requested by the member for Vancouver East, that the interests of consumers are going to be protected in some way that will satisfy the express concerns of his own Utilities Commission.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The legal assurance that the member seeks is in this bill. and under the provisions of

[ Page 8814 ]

this bill that will happen. I did not say that everything is fine and well, or whatever the words the member used are. I share the same concerns as the Utilities Commission, but I say to you that the enaction of this bill, along with the other sections which are already in place dealing with increases in rates of return for utilities, will allow us to ensure that the consumers' interests will be protected.

I'll refer you to page 26 of the report from the commission, in which they outlined very clearly what their concerns were: change of share ownership and impact the change might have on the operations of the public utility. They have said that the applicant recognized this and undertook to implement several measures to ensure that the change of shareholders would hot affect the operations of Inland. It's obvious that even with those assurances the commission felt somewhat constrained to accept those assurances as they stood at that moment, but any further change or impact on either the delivery or price of natural gas to the Inland consumers will be under the terms of the Utilities Commission Act and the subject of review by the Utilities Commission. They must, by the nature of their mandate, ensure that both of those responsibilities are upheld.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister may believe that, but the Utilities Commission doesn't.

Sections 20 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

MR. D'ARCY: This section does make some reference to discretionary retroactivity. Perhaps the minister could explain to the committee whether or not he sees this section as being useful in terms of dealing with the subject matter that has been covered relative to the TMK Inland Gas takeover.

I notice he's consulting with the Attorney-General. Perhaps the question could have been better put to the Attorney-General, but I'm trying to stay in order.

Since this section does deal with retroactivity, can the minister make it clear to the committee how this section could possibly be relevant to the Inland-TMA takeover that has been discussed before the committee this afternoon?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I am advised that it's a requirement in case there is some challenge to the order-in-council passed under the old act, regulation 147-82, and the Utilities Commission order which followed that order-in-council. The Attorney-General advises me that it could in fact involve a challenge of the Utilities Commission decision.

MR. D'ARCY: Can we take it that the minister is stating — after advice from the Attorney-General — that in his view this section cannot possibly be used to require those conditions to be put in place, regarding the takeover that the Utilities Commission was concerned about in making their judgment of a few days ago?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think I understand what the member is asking. The answer is no, and I don't think it has much to do with this particular amendment. But it does have to do with other parts of the act in which the commission, once it's given its decision and report, cannot vary that decision without reconvening public hearings. It would have to — I think, Mr. Attorney-General — have some reason raised at that point, perhaps by one of the interveners or one of the participants at that point.

Sections 34 and 35 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(Continued)

On vote 57: minister's office, $152,517.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Before noon there were some questions with respect to the youth employment program and VDTs — the latter in particular — which I didn't have an opportunity to answer.

With respect to the first item, summer jobs, I was asked whether the program was cancelled. I advised that it was never cancelled; as a matter of fact, the funding had been increased by several hundred thousand dollars. But I think it's important to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that we had a target of something in excess of 8,000 jobs. To July 8, 1982, the total has been 8, 839. The private sector responded extraordinarily well and exceeded our objectives by roughly 700. Our target was 4, 932 and as of July 8 it's 5, 635. The same applies in the areas of tourism and museums. I might mention the only area where — according to this report — we have not achieved our objective. In cost-secondary institutions, our objective is 1,100 jobs; as of this date it is 1, 03 6. I expect that slack will be picked up. When the program first came on stream, there was some comment about its alleged cancellation. Comments were made by universities; I've got letters from them, recognizing the value of the program. They're using the program well and are pleased it's back on.

[ Page 8815 ]

We receive a lot of interesting correspondence from a number of associations and organizations in the province — from tourism booths, chambers, museum societies, etc, One of the best letters came from a company operating an information systems consulting business, expressing delight that the program is still alive. The letter concluded: "Over the years it has been one of the best investments I have seen of government taxpayers' money. The program has been the only government program in which I have been involved over the years which I thought was profitable for everyone involved — the industry, individuals and the taxpayers." It was encouraging; it's nice to receive items like this.

A question was asked about the video display terminals. I think it's unfair of the member to say that we haven't expressed any interesting the problems "allegedly" attributed to them. There has been a great deal of interest. We publish the Labour Research Bulletin. There is a feature article in the bulletin; this particular publication put out by the occupational environment branch of the Ministry of Labour, entitled "Working With Video Display Terminals, " was authored by an occupational health consultant and two doctors with the Ministry of Health....

MS. SANFORD: How many terminals have you tested?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't answer that question for you.

The concern is: what are we going to do? A major item came out as a result of a brief presented by the Hospital Employees Union and a federal task force on microelectronics and employment. Apparently investigations of similar reported cluster instances of abnormal pregnancies among VDT operators have not identified a cause that can be related to them. We know that the occupational environment branch has obviously been concerned, A booklet was published and distributed. It explains in detail all aspects of the use and practical ways in which the work life of the operators can be improved. We are aware of it. We're passing out as much information as we can. We try to have knowledgeable people, who are obviously concerned, author the reports. One of the doctors in the Ministry of Health is assistant director of the division of occupational health, and the other is director of the radiation protective service.

I cannot answer your question about the case involving the Army and Navy Department Store and the human rights branch, but I will take note of your concern and your suggestion that a class action be made possible by amendment to the legislation.

The member raised other questions concerning women in government. During the past year there has been quite a significant increase. I'm advised that 12 women now have administrative or directors roles. One, of course, is the lady I referred to earlier who has been confirmed as the director of human rights, Hanne Jensen. Another director is the director of the youth employment division, Virginia Greene. One of the most recent appointments within the last four or five months is the director of communications, who is Marnie Mitchell. I think that covers some of the items you had raised.

One recent item I might mention involves the transportation of farmworkers. I'm now advised by the director of information services of the WCB that 31 inspections have now been conducted.

MS. SANFORD: As of last week, for the first time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On an accelerated Pattern like that, you are correct.

MS. SANFORD: After the accident.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What inspections were conducted by the WCB prior to that time, I cannot answer — whether there were none or one or two or whether they were intermittent. I'm not sure. But I think the important thing is that once it became evident these practices were being conducted. the RCMP and the WCB were working on this.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate the minister's staff on their preparation for the discussion of these estimates before the Legislature, and I suppose I should congratulate the minister too. He's doing his best in the fashion in which he was programmed. and I want to give him recognition for that. The reason I know he's been programmed is that I think he dropped a memo as he was leaving the House. and it fell into the wrong hands. I found it humorous to look through that memo — and I don't know where it came from; I'll send it back to the minister if he wants it. It shows the considerable extent to which the staff goes to prepare this minister for his annual accountability session with the Legislature. He's playing the role pretty well. and I think we should give him full marks.

"Minister's Briefing Book. 1982-83 Estimates:

'"Executive directors and directors are requested to provide information for inclusion in the briefing book to be used by the minister during debate in the House on our ministry's '82-83 estimates."

What would you ever do without them, Mr. Minister?

"You should very briefly summarize in point form the issues and problems concerning your programs which could or should be raised in the House. Subjects to be considered would include: (1) matters, which were raised in the 1981-82 estimates debate — refer to copies of Hansard attached, (2) programs or policies introduced to revise since the 1980-81 fiscal year. particularly any changes forthcoming in 1982-83: (3) matters which became the subject of media attention during the current fiscal year; and (4) matters which you feel the minister may wish to raise in the House."

And it goes on, Mr. Chairman: "To facilitate preparation of the briefing book, please follow the format and guidelines set out on the enclosed sample  — 'Finance and Administration Submission.' "

I want to congratulate the minister on how well he followed this briefing book. It's very detailed and it's extremely sophisticated, and I know that staff spent many hours and, undoubtedly. thousands of dollars in resources deciding how they were going to pro-ram the minister to look good in the debate. It s really poignant stuff. "Headings such as 'Finance' can be used if you feel that a subsection is called for. All should be double-spaced, so the minister can read it easily." None of this single-spacing for the minister. He may get mixed up and trip over his tongue or something. He has no knowledge of what goes on in his ministry. He has to be briefed: not only that. he has to be double-spaced. This is no single-space minister. this one. Mr. Chairman. All should be double-spaced, and 8½ by 11 inch paper should be used. We don't want to lose the minister in his briefing book. ''Leave at least a 1½ inch margin on the left-hand side so

[ Page 8816 ]

that it, can be placed in a binder." Maybe the minister even wants to make some notes. I suggest that with this minister they should leave the margin on the right-hand side — I think it would be more appropriate. Use Courier, ten-pitch type style. Double — underline headings. Double underline the headings so the minister doesn't get lost. I think my colleague has been way off base in asking this minister all these sophisticated questions about occupational health and safety. He wasn't briefed on those things and he has no knowledge of his own, I'm afraid. Mr. Chairman, I think it's rather amusing — all the pages of Hansard from last year attached. Can the minister not read? Does the minister not know what is topical and what is important in terms of the administration of the Ministry of Labour?

I found it interesting that the minister came out with a ringing statement at the start of his estimates debate, a ringing defence of the collective bargaining process in the province of British Columbia. It sounded really tough. He spoke so low that the Premier couldn't hear him from where he was sitting. He's a tough minister, this one. His defence of the collective bargaining system in the province of British Columbia would be more reassuring if his colleague the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) had not offered this thing — this beast called a strike contingency manual for the public service of the province of British Columbia. Does the Minister of Labour know about that? Has he read it? Does he agree with its philosophy? Does he agree with the steps that are outlined in the strike contingency manual for dealing with the government's own employees? If he does, I would think he would want nothing less, or nothing more, for the private sector workers of the province.

I want to remind the minister of what's in here. I want to remind the House what's in here. There's a list of things that should be read to the House, I think, so that everyone remembers what's in here. This is a contingency manual telling the senior staff of the public service what they should do if a labour dispute develops in the public service. Aside from the wisdom of having some contingency plan available, I think that the minister would agree that it's not a very sensible thing to do in labour terms to wave a red flag at the bull, as it were. If one speculates publicly that a major dispute is going to take place, it can indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The best thing to do is not to make inflammatory statements in public. The best thing to do is not to print inflammatory brochures and manuals. Listen to some of the things that are said here, Mr. Chairman. It tells the senior staff in the public service:

"For the purpose of the employer taking legal or disciplinary measures, witnesses, who must be excluded employees, can use only the original notes that they made based on firsthand knowledge, signed and dated at the time of the incident or immediately thereafter, containing accurate and precise information, either handwritten or typewritten, and preferably reduced to affidavit form later. Where the information is not obtained firsthand, the dependent" — I don't know what that means — "must be satisfied that the information is reliable and must obtain the name, telephone number, address and occupation of each person providing the information. Furthermore, photographs of events — which should preferably be taken in colour film, but which should not be taken in a provocative manner — documents such as telegrams, newsletters and handbills, or things such as picket signs and posters which tend to show that the employees were conducting, or counselled to con duct, improper acts, may help prove some point during a legal proceeding."

This document counsels management staff within the public service to photograph the employees with whom they may be involved in a labour dispute — colour film; swear out affidavits; take telephone numbers; spy — to spy on the employees of the government of the province of British Columbia. Your colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who fathered this document, apparently has such distaste and disdain for the working people of the government itself that he anticipates that they will be involved in all kinds of illegal conduct. He is setting up a system that smacks of the old Pinkerton mentality where you brought in spies to watch what workers were doing in a labour dispute. They are not criminals; they are employees of the provincial government. They are decent, law-abiding British Columbians, and for your colleague the Provincial Secretary to set up this kind of goon-squad, hit-squad mentality of stooges and eavesdroppers, while you get up, Mr. Minister, to introduce your estimates with some pallid, pale statement about preserving collective bargaining in the province of British Columbia.... What kind of a focal point are you? Does anyone have any confidence in your sincerity regarding preserving collective bargaining when you have never issued a statement repudiating this abominable document?

Let me read some more of what it says, what it anticipates, in terms of the illegal conduct that the employees of the government of the province of British Columbia may indulge in. It's here somewhere. You know, they even attach copies of the Criminal Code, but they list the offences that can be anticipated in appendix C of the strike manual. This is B.C. government policy, my friends. Here are the illegal acts, the sections of the Criminal Code, which this government anticipates their own employees to indulge in: unlawful assembly, riot, punishment of a rioter — section 66 of the Criminal Code; section 67, punishment for unlawful assembly; section 85, possession of weapon or intimidation. Who is going to possess the weapon — the nurses? Is it going to be some of the junior staff of the Ministry of Labour? Who's it going to be? Is it going to be some of your mediation officers, who have spent a lifetime trying to develop industrial peace and harmony in this province? They are the people affected by this document.

Section 87, carrying a concealed weapon; section 116, disobeying a court order; section 118, offences relating to public or peace officer.... Do this minister and his colleague really believe that the public servants in the province of British Columbia are so radical and contemptuous of the law that they are going to attack peace officers in the event of a labour dispute? Is that what the minister and his colleague think?

Section 171, causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.... What kind of a government is this? Do you really suspect that your employees, much less the private sector employees, those honest, decent, hard-working people of the province, are going to indulge in indecent exhibition if a dispute between their employer and their union ensues? What kind of a sick mentality is this? Where has the Minister of Labour been in failing to repudiate this document? It's not enough for him to get up and say: "Well, there are some pressures, but I'm going to defend the integrity of

[ Page 8817 ]

the collective bargaining system." The government has no integrity left when they issue this kind of document.

There's more. They list section 245, common assault; section 246, assault with intent; section 381, intimidation; and section 387, mischief. This is what this government is anticipating. The title on it is "Strike Contingency Manual, Government Employee Relations Bureau, Confidential." I guess it was confidential, but it came to light and so it should come to light, because this kind of thinking, utterance and writing not only poisons the climate of industrial relations in this province; it poisons any credibility or any respect that right-minded people had in viewing the conduct of their government; that's what it does. I want to hear the Minister of Labour stand in this House and tell the members of this Legislature whether or not he endorses this document that was put out under the authority of his colleague the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

The Minister of Labour, a lawyer by trade, is receiving some legal advice from the Attorney-General at the moment. It's not legal advice he needs, Mr. Attorney-General; it's some moral advice. He needs some advice on morality and integrity, because if he is to be respected as a Minister of Labour, he would have to repudiate this kind of trash in the strongest possible terms, I challenge him to do that now. I challenge him to assure the House that this kind of document will be rescinded, and that he will personally repudiate his colleague the Provincial Secretary for allowing this to be uttered under the authority of his ministry.

I want the Minister of Labour's assurance that he totally dissociates himself from the kind of garbage contained in the government's official strike contingency manual. If he is prepared to do that, I would like to get into some rational discussion about the administration of the Ministry of Labour. But if we have a Minister of Labour who, through his silence, even tacitly endorses this kind of rubbish, then I say it is totally meaningless to debate even any of the general administrative responsibilities that fall under the Ministry of Labour during his tenure. I'm going to take my seat. I ask the Minister of Labour to give a clear, forceful and unequivocal statement to this House regarding his position on the garbage printed in this manual.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 57 pass? On vote 57, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING: It's absolutely unbelievable that the Minister of Labour sits silently, mute, in his chair and ignores the kind of poison that's contained in this manual. He fails to seek the opportunity to totally dissociate himself from that kind of poison and fails to admonish his colleague the Provincial Secretary for allowing it to be issued. Under those circumstances, anything that this Minister of Labour does or says in the realm of industrial relations in the province of British Columbia is suspect. I say that regretfully.

When the Minister of Labour suggested that there were pressures on the collective bargaining system, was he referring to the strike manual put out by the Government Employee Relations Bureau? Was he referring to the right-to-work resolutions that were submitted at he Social Credit annual convention? Was he referring to any of those things? I would like to hear an answer from the minister in that respect. Where is the pressure against the integrity of the collective bargaining system in the province coming from?

Mr. Chairman, I have a whole variety of other matters I intended to raise, but quite frankly, I'm so appalled by the minister's silence that I think it's futile to go into a debate about lost man-days in the province. I think it's futile to go into any intelligent debate about different initiatives that might be taken to improve the quality of our industrial relations in the province of British Columbia. It's futile to talk about those things, because this Government and this minister obviously hold the whole system in nothing but contempt. When they view their own employees as capable of breaches of the law in the fashion outlined in this manual, I say there is no hope for the system under this government and certainly none under a minister who is so weak-kneed that he fails to dissociate himself from that kind of rot.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is just such speeches that we have just heard that sow the mines in the labour minefield in British Columbia.

We have the finest civil service in Canada, we know that — we've stated that on the floor of this House many times — and it is not a matter that should be up for debate. To suggest that anybody on this side of the House or this party opposes labour or the civil service is a mere misrepresentation of the facts and a heinous thing to say. It is not true; it is patently wrong, totally wrong, very irregular -— and there are stronger words I could use, but I shall not use them. To bring words like this into this House and to temper the words and place them in the labour minefield. such as goon-squad — to quote his own words — hit-squad, riot, unlawful assembly, possession of weapons, carrying concealed weapons.... I know it is one of the tricks of the opposition to laugh when a member is speaking. We notice no one laughs at him; we listen with some respect and silence.

But we are indeed saddened to hear a man who was a former Minister of Labour go about sowing minefields to trip up the civil service of this province. Whatever this document is he claims to read from, I have never seen it, nor do I particularly want to see it. It is not the issue before this House. The issues before this House are the estimates of the Minister of Labour, and those are the issues we must consider at this time.

It's regrettable that the attitude created by this opposition throughout the years has created confrontations with labour which are totally unnecessary. That is what has created the confrontation. We do not need this hot confrontation climate in British Columbia. This Government has tried its best to defuse it and has done so. There has not been a longer period of labour peace for many a decade in this province. Inflammatory speeches of this kind are nothing more than a sowing of mines. a distressful minefield to trip up not this government but the public, to say that we are out for....

Let me tell you this, Mr. Chairman, and mark it well. In every large group of employees there are always some who go overboard and create the misdemeanours, and these people should be identified, because they're the ones who damage the labour climate in British Columbia, who reflect badly on our industrial strength and who prevent companies coming in here that would love to come in here but are afraid of the hot, unreasonable climate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one!

[ Page 8818 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: Name them? The numbers are legend, and there are many. But I'm not here.... We're debating the estimates of the Minister of Labour.

It is just this kind of attitude, this kind of confrontation, this kind of loose statement and this kind of exaggeration that inflames the public, that turns these people on who create the damage that is being done. We had just such a situation, Mr. Chairman, not many years ago in 1971, when in New Westminster at a convention, Mr. Cyril Shelford, a previous Minister of Labour, was hit over the back with a two-by-four, and to this day he still suffers from that injury. Now what caused that'? That was because of the confrontation exercise created by this government. We do not blame the federation of labour that was involved; not at all. I blame just one individual, Mr. Chairman, who did not understand, was inflamed, was tipped over the edge because of statements such as we heard from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). That's the kind of thing that tips people on the edge over the edge.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

He laughs nervously; he knows I'm right. Others laugh nervously; they know I'm right. The climate in British Columbia must be cooled down. We must have labour peace. We are with our employees; we are with the civil service. But I do believe, regardless of this document, that when bad things happen, illegal acts happen, these people should be identified, and they must be identified.

It was not too long ago that there was serious labour disruption in the B.C. Telephone Co., when sabotage of the worst kind was being done by someone; we do not know who did it. But nervous laughs continue. Mr. Chairman, it's not a laughing matter; it's a serious matter. Would it not have been better for the 99.99 percent of British Columbians who want labour peace to know who are the perpetrators of this trouble? I say that the public is being inflamed by such speeches. They do not know the facts. They are not for peace; they're for confrontation. Why can't they stand up in their places and assist the Minister of Labour'? This parliament is not for the NDP, nor for Social Credit; this is a parliament of the people of British Columbia. We should be here to assist the Minister of Labour get better legislation. I'm ashamed to be in this House to see this confrontation spectacle. There have been inflammatory speeches like this throughout the history of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The nervous laughs continue; they continue because they know no better — hysterical giggling.

The fact is that we have the finest labour force in Canada, except for one or two bad apples. Those people should be identified — that's our problem. I ask the members of the opposition to use judgment and care in what they are saying and to understand that we have one purpose here. We should be working together to improve this province — not to create confrontation or sow minefields, but to get together for the benefit of our people and our civil servants. Canada is in difficult times. British Columbia is in difficult times also, but not as bad as the rest of Canada. But it is very difficult. These are times for cohesion, not separation. It's a time to get together in a common cause, not to be destructive. The speech by the member for Shuswap-Revel stoke was destructive and inconsiderate, and it had no purpose except to inflame.

MR. KING: I want to assure the member for Dewdney that I didn't hit Cyril Shelford on the shoulder with the club, nor do I think I incited that to occur, because I wasn't even here then.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I never said you did.

MR. KING: As a matter of fact, Cyril came to my office seeking compensation coverage on the shoulder. Certainly it was a very unfortunate incident.

I think the member misses the point. I'm going to try to make it clear for him. If anyone breaches the law, if anyone acts like a hooligan, of course he should be dealt with under the law; and we have a police force to do that. What I was reading from is your government's strike contingency manual, Mr. Member. They're not my words. I disagree with them. If you want a copy, I'll give it to you. You should know it, because you are part of that government. Yes, you're right: it's inflammatory; it's inconsiderate. The point about people being identified; we have a criminal justice system to identify and prosecute those who violate the law. We should not be asking the public service, as this strike manual does, to play Pinkerton, to play informer on their fellow workers. That's precisely what it does. We should not be anticipating breaches of the Criminal Code by members of the public service, and that is clearly what this strike manual does. If the member cannot understand that it's the government's document, the government's language and the government's philosophy, then I guess there's nothing I or anyone else can do to assist him. Yes, it's inflammatory; yes, it's ill-advised. It is issued under the authority of the government that you belong to, Mr. Member. That's what's so sad about it.

We shall never be able to gain the kind of cooperative relationship between workers in this province and management in this province unless there is, first of all, respect for the existence of both. This particular document displays a complete disrespect for the legal functions of trade unions. If the Minister of Labour and the government are sincere about trying to bring in initiatives to bring labour and management together to create a better and more cooperative climate, one in which there is mutual recognition that they have a joint stake in improving the strength of our economy, and our productivity to ensure that our product is competitive in world markets, and that there is security in employment.... They are all admirable things that we should be doing. The point is: how can we possibly gain the confidence of labour and management, the parties at the bargaining table, when the government of this province issues such an objectionable document, which finds working people, their own employees, guilty of the most — I don't know how to describe it — atrocious kind of behaviour? If you don't trust them, if you think they're capable of attacking with weapons, and capable of all of the potential crimes outlined in this strike manual, how then can you sit down and have a cooperative dialogue? It's absolutely absurd and the most poisonous kind of document I have ever read, not only in British Columbia but in any jurisdiction in Canada.

If the Minister of Labour would only get on his feet and say, "Look, I agree with you; I think the policy manual is wrong and ill-advised, and I dissociate myself from it; I, as

[ Page 8819 ]

the Minister of Labour in the province of British Columbia, and my colleague the Provincial Secretary, repudiate this document, " then we might have a basis for some logical and respectful discussion. But so long as this remains as the official policy of the government of the province of British Columbia, then I regretfully have to say that I have absolutely no respect for the government or for the office of a Minister of Labour who would tolerate this kind of poison abroad in the name of the government of British Columbia. That's the shameful reality of the situation.

It's not good enough for the member for Dewdney to say we should be cooperating. That would be nice, and it is a fact that on more than one occasion I have collaborated with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he was Minister of Labour, and with the current Minister of Labour, and offered my views on how we might improve the industrial relations climate in the province. We've had discussions about particular labour disputes and we've had them in confidence; they've never been used politically. But against the background of this kind of poison, I have to say that I personally have lost respect for that office unless that office completely dissociates themselves from the contents of this poisonous document.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suppose that in 1981 there was really a fair amount of exaggeration. I suspect that concerns, comments and expressions by a number of people occurred. With respect to that particular document, I gather it was prepared by GERB — to the best of my knowledge. I understand that they had had some dialogue with others involved who have identical manuals; I'm not sure. I think it would be fair to say that I had communicated my views with respect to that particular document. The Ministry of Labour was not involved in its preparation and was certainly not consulted. I will say that GERB, acting as an employer representative, felt that it was incumbent upon itself to prepare this particular manual to assist them in the event of any problems. Why? I suppose any employer organization might prepare something like this. I think it probably would be advisable that when guidelines and things like this are prepared, there would be some discussion with the ministry, because the fact of the matter is, I gather, that the Provincial Secretary's ministry, through GERB.... And it's part of government, although GERB operates as a bargaining agent on behalf of government itself.

I really would have to say that, going back, there seemed to be a number of items that occurred in 1981 that involved a fair degree of exaggeration on both sides.

MR. KING: Oh, Jack, you're so weak it's pathetic.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: My friend, the fact of the matter is, this particular issue came up when this brief was given by GERB to the GEU, and I'll tell you it was raised at the time. I remember listening to the debate. The Provincial Secretary answered it; it was handled then. I tell you that we were not involved in the preparation. As the Minister of Labour, I can assure you of what happens if there is a particular dispute. Raising this item right now reminds me of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) trying to justify a member's recent statement: coming back in, bringing it all out, rehashing it on TV. There was a debate at the time. It was finished. These people are in negotiations now. Why raise something like this? You made your point some time ago, Mr. Member.

When they're busy negotiating, what's the point of raising this sort of material? Absolutely none.

I will only say that in the Ministry of Labour, in the event of some problems which may or may not rise.... Hopefully they won't arise. But if they do, there has to be some degree of impartiality and neutrality in this particular office. Obviously this ministry is not involved in the thing.

You raised one other matter, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, involving something about the integrity of bargains and of institutions, as I recall. You've been involved in labour matters a lot longer than I have, but in 1981, I remember court orders that weren't obeyed. I remember refusals to appear before the board because of some particular problems involving another dispute. Come on, we all remember that. I remember the extensive use of secondary picketing. which is a violation of the provisions of the code. I remember calls for a general strike, and things like that. My point is that there is a Labour Code in British Columbia, with which you're very familiar, and there are rules and regulations. There's an institution created to carry out those particular rules and regulations, and I don't want to see any deviation from that — not by those who administer it, those who should be before it. those who should obey the orders. That's really what I , was referring to.

MR. COCKE: I would expect the Provincial Secretary to have taken a position in defence of the document produced by GERB, but for the arbiter of labour management relations in this province not to dissociate himself entirely from it is, to me, absurd. Of all the documents to evoke anger and create havoc in labour management relations, that's got to be one of the best I've ever seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or worst.

MR. COCKE: Or the worst, as my colleague says. Best if they want to do that: worst if they don't.

In any event. I believe the Minister of Labour should stand up and dissociate himself from that. Let the Provincial Secretary go ahead, let his department fiddle like that, but there's no way the Minister of Labour should be associated in any way, shape or form with such a piece of red, inflammatory material.

MR. KING: I have two final points.

I don't know what the minister was trying to infer when he talked about 1981 and people defying board orders. I hope he wasn't inferring that I in any way counselled people to defy board orders, because nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know what he's referring to, or what the relevance is of the fact that there was some defiance of the law. That may occur from time to time and the law is designed to deal with transgressions; whether it be the administrative law of the Labour Relations Board or an order subsequently filed with the courts, that's on their heads. As far as I am concerned, the parties to industrial relations should indeed obey the law, because that's they only, way the system can have integrity.

The other point the minister made is that he has to be an impartial arbiter. That's very true, and I accept that. But how can you be an impartial arbiter when your own government has displayed the most scandalous contempt for one of the parties to the system, one of the parties within the framework of law which you administer? How can you persuade them

[ Page 8820 ]

that here is a minister who is indeed impartial and has equal respect for the rights of both sides, when that minister is a party to a brochure that has characterized working people as possible criminals on all of the counts outlined in that document — capable of concealing weapons, of indecent displays — and counselled senior staff to take photographs of them, to phone, to take notes, to act as informers? I would think that if the government had any respect for their employees, and if the government had an intelligent approach to industrial relations, it would deem working people generally, and certainly public employees in particular, to be law-abiding citizens, and treat any breach of the law which may occur through the normal criminal justice system, and not set up a new level of informers within the public service, and not anticipate and proclaim that the employees of this government are capable of all the heinous crimes outlined in that detestable document. That's the issue. If the Minister of Labour is going to sit weakly in his place and fail to repudiate that kind of poisonous approach to industrial relations, then I would have to say, if I were a trade union representative coming before that minister: "If he has already categorized us as potential criminals, if he has already written us off as capable of all of these terrible misdeeds, how can he have any respect or sympathy for my case?" Accordingly, how can he be the impartial arbiter that he pretends to be? That's the issue here.

If the minister is so weak and lacking in commitment to the structure of law, which he as a minister of the Crown is authorized and duty-bound to preside over, that he will not repudiate and dissociate himself from that document, then I say that this is the weakest, most scandalous performance by any minister of the Crown I have ever seen in the history of this province. Shame on you!

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister wants to stand up now and refute this particular document. If so, I would be quite willing to relinquish my place.

MS. SANFORD: Well, does he support it?

MS. BROWN: Would the minister stand up and say whether he supports this document?

I just want to associate myself, Mr. Chairman, with the statements made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) as they apply to this document — also, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who totally disagreed with the contents of the document. The only mistake he made was in thinking that the document was written by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. I'm really quite surprised that the minister has not used this opportunity to get it on record that he does not tolerate the kinds of things outlined in this document.

I want to speak to the minister today about the shameful and disgraceful way in which domestic workers are still being treated by this government. I can't believe that after all these years, and after the number of times we've raised these issues on behalf of the domestic workers in estimates, question period, and through private members' bills, and so on, that their situation has not improved. There was a very slight improvement in terms of amending some of the regulations. But for all intents and purposes the domestic workers of this province still are virtual slaves, quite frankly, and this with the endorsement and support of this particular government. Apparently there are something in the neighbourhood of 3,000 privately employed nanny-housekeepers, predominantly in their mid-twenties, in British Columbia. In addition, there are a number of people working for the provincial government, or for organizations that contract work for the provincial government, who come under the same label of domestic workers. Can I quote from the brief which they presented to the minister in 1980: "Domestic workers are employed in a variety of different situations. Some work in private households, some work through large employment agencies, and others are employed directly or indirectly by the government." Despite that, Mr. Chairman, this is a situation which they still work under.

According to legislation, they are excluded from section 3 of the Employment Standards Act, That's the section that has to do with hours of work and overtime; in other words, they are supposed to work eight hours a day. Whether they work 14, 15, 17 or 18 hours a day, their wage is still based on an eight-hour day at the minimum wage. There is no inspection, no supervision, no protection whatsoever for these workers, most of whom are women — I think almost all of them are women. There is no protection in terms of days off. They are supposed to have two days off, but there is no law or regulation that says they must be consecutive. Because they have so little protection, their exploitation continues unabated.

As though that were not bad enough, Mr. Chairman, a number of these women are immigrant women from various parts of the world, and part of the agreement with the Department of Immigration is that they have to live in their place of employment. Despite that, there are no standards covering their living and working conditions, and no inspection. Nobody says that the domestic worker is entitled to a bed of her own, to a room of her own, even to privacy; no standards have been laid down. No one goes to inspect the living and working conditions under which she has to survive. As though that were not bad enough, apparently a worker at the employment standards branch has informed a member of the domestic workers' union that the branch is seriously considering increasing the amount of money which can be deducted from the domestic worker's wage to cover room and board.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding.

MS. BROWN: Oh, no. You see, at present the employer is allowed to deduct somewhere between $175 and $200 a month from a salary of $625 a month, which is the average wage a domestic earns. This worker at the employment standards branch says the branch is thinking of increasing that to $300 a month — $300 a month to be deducted for room and board when, as the domestics often tell you, they are lucky if they get a hide-a-bed chesterfield in the rumpus room as their place of accommodation. There are no standards. They have to live in their place of employment or Immigration will deport them back to their place of origin. They have no choice. There is no inspection to ensure that these women have decent living and working conditions, but the employment standards branch is setting arbitrary figures as to what can be deducted from their already paltry income.

As though that were not bad enough, everyone knows that this province has no legislation dealing with sexual harassment. A number of these women run into this problem and

[ Page 8821 ]

have nowhere to turn. Under the Employment Standards Act. we are told that a worker is entitled to two weeks' vacation after working one year. The reality of the situation is that most of these domestics find that it is up to ten months after their year is over before they can claim their two weeks. In other words, they are working something in the neighbourhood of 22 months, in some instances, before they can claim their two weeks.

They have no protection from wrongful dismissal, and because of their immigration status, once they're dismissed, back they go. There is a six-month statute of limitation on their complaints, and sometimes these workers don't even find out until almost six months or a year after they get their T4 slips that they have somehow been treated dishonestly.

The domestic workers have come together and formed themselves into a union. They have presented briefs to the Minister of Labour. They have begged and pleaded to be covered by the workers' compensation legislation. They have begged and pleaded for standards to be designed covering their living and working conditions, and for these to be inspected. They've asked that the minimum wage be increased, because it's certainly not a living wage. They've asked that their hours of work be very closely monitored, because they are working overtime and not being paid overtime. It says here in one of their briefs that a regular working day runs from 15 to 16 hours, and that in many instances even on their day off they're expected to be home in time to prepare meals and then leave again. The government tolerates this.

The other thing is that these women's livelihoods depend on their being healthy. Their experience has been that if then become ill for any length of time they are summarily dismissed. As I said before, once they are dismissed they are deported, or at least the Immigration department begins procedures to have them deported.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour if he is now ready to do something about meeting some of the demands made by the domestic workers through their union, in terms of the Employment Standards Act.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what material the member was reading from, but it astounds me that a year or two goes by, and the only time I hear from the member is during estimates. If in fact the member has evidence which she can show me, maybe we could try to help out somehow. But it's pretty difficult to hear all the things brought out.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If we want to look into the seventies — I mean all of the seventies, Madam Member — nothing happened during all of the seventies. It was only in March 1981 that the Employment Standards Act came in. Those who are working as domestics have the protection of that legislation. Yes, there's an exemption when it comes to hours of work and overtime. But by the very nature of the work which a domestic performs, I think that's understandable. I'm not turning around and holding the flag for those who find it convenient to have domestics. You can accept that at face value, believe me. But I also think there's got to be some degree of flexability in here, and I think those were two areas.

One of the things that concerns me that you've raised is sexual harassment. That charge has been made before. It's strange that the entire year or two years have gone by, and I've never had one case brought before me.

MS. BROWN: What would you do with it? There's no legislation in this province to deal with it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are provisions under the Human Rights Code. You're the authors of that particular code: the legislation was introduced by your government.

With respect to the plight of immigrant women, I hope that that's something that the new deputy minister of women's program will be ate to look into. I remember speaking to a group of immigrant — women in downtown Vancouver; I believe it was in Chinatown. There was quite a substantial turnout. That was one of the concerns which they had. It's something we're hoping will be examined by the new position which I've recently created. It concerns me when you raise issues about bed, room and privacy. Of course that's — going to be of some concern, but unless that information is communicated to the employment standards branch when somebody is being abused. I would say it's rather difficult. Surely if that problem is in existence and of some consequence. It would probably find its way to the ministry and probably to my office.

Now the other comment I think you probably raised more out of a request to find out what my position is than a basic fear of something going to happen. There is no consideration at all being given to increasing that allotment with respect to room and board and the allocation. I've never even heard about it, and I presume that that would come my way; it certainly better. I recognize the concern with the minimum wage and it's always under review.

You said that somebody could work for 22 months before they Lot their first two weeks' holiday. That's not what the legislation provides, and I would think that if somebody in fact has been unfairly treated, that's the purpose of the employment standards branch. It's done that for some time.

On the WCB area, yes, we've made a move in the area of farmworkers. The matter of domestics is something which has been a subject of discussion between myself and the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, but I will tell you that it hasn't gotten any further than that. The WCB, I suspect and believe and can, I think, safely presume, probably has that authority to do something in there, but I'm not sure about that, I feel that it may do it, and I can raise that issue again.

MS. BROWN: The minister was wondering what document I'm reading from. I'm reading from a brief submitted to the Hon. Jack Heinrich, Minister of Labour, by the B.C. Domestics Association. The minister says I never raise this issue except once a year; each year I'm hoping I won't have to raise it again. I'm hoping that having had the information presented to him the minister would have done something about it. Then the minister goes on to say, of course, that they're covered by the Employment Standards Act, except section 3, which as I mentioned, has to do with hours of work and overtime. Maybe the minister thinks that you can't do something about work and overtime, but the domestics think that you can.

Since they're the ones doing the work and the overtime, I think the least that the minister can do is read the brief they present and listen to some of the arguments that they have. How on earth in this day and age can a government justify

[ Page 8822 ]

overworking people on the grounds that you have to be flexible? To go so far as to base their wage on an eight-hour day and then to turn around and say that they can't only work an eight-hour day.... Well, if they can't work an eight hour day, don't base their wage on an eight-hour day. Base their wage on a 12-hour day or a 24-hour day, but it doesn't make sense to say that they must be paid the minimum wage times eight but that you can't insist that their work day is only eight hours. That doesn't make any sense at all.

The minister did not deal with my statement about inspection and the laying down of some standards of living and working conditions for those women. I would like him to respond to that particular thing. Also, every year I'm told that Workers' Compensation is looking at this. I don't think that that is good enough, because everyone agrees that the most unsafe work environment anywhere in society is the home; yet these women are not covered by workers' compensation. I'm not at all happy or content with the minister's response to my questions, and I'm hoping that he will have more to say on that particular topic.

I want to raise another issue with the Minister of Labour which has to do with the Human Rights Code. Specifically it has to do with the failure of the Human Rights Code to protect the disabled people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the hon. member is aware, the discussion of legislation in the ministerial estimates is not in order.

MS. BROWN: Okay, then I'll talk about the Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission is not able to protect the disabled people of this province. I have before me a brief, which I have not checked out in detail, but it says that British Columbia is the only province that still does not have in its statutes protection against discrimination of disabled people.

Beautiful speeches were made, such as the throne speech during the International Year of Disabled Persons. The government was going to do great and wonderful things. The members of the disabled community would be able to live in dignity as a result of actions by the government during that year. The disabled community took the government seriously and presented it with a series of requests. One of the things they asked for was protection against discrimination, because they were disabled, in accommodation, employment and service.

The International Year of Disabled Persons is over, and there is still no protection in those three areas. I'm not going to discuss legislation; as the Chairman pointed out, I cannot bring to the minister's attention that only the Human Rights Code is able to deal with that. The disabled asked for an expansion of vocational training, and asked to be covered by the minimum wage in terms of their labour. What has happened since then? It didn't happen during the International Year of Disabled Persons, and it certainly hasn't happened to this date.

Does the minister have any plans in terms of meeting these requests? I'm going to put them in some sort of order. First, the members of the disabled community would like to be protected by some kind of human rights protection, whether through legislation or the Human Rights Commission. The disabled community would like to be covered by the minimum wage. The disabled community would like an expansion of vocational training, because they would rather work than collect welfare. They want to be trained, they want to be employed, and they want to be paid for their labour. They don't want to be given some kind of subsistence honorarium.

Secondly, the disabled community pointed out that, given that they make up 5 percent of the population in British Columbia, they should make up at least 5 percent of the workforce. The government, as the largest employer of workers in this province, should set the example. What has the minister done in terms of affirmative action programs for the disabled? At last reading there were only 170 disabled persons employed by the provincial government, instead of 2,500, which is what it should be. So I'm asking whether the Ministry of Labour has implemented any affirmative action program on behalf of the disabled community; if so, I'd like to know the results of it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On the first item with respect to the disabled, I recognize that there has been a concerted effort by that organization. I don't question it. In fact, I support their efforts.

I also recognize that submissions have been made with respect to amendments to the Human Rights Code. It takes some time to proceed with change. The new Human Rights Commission, under the chairmanship of Dr. Charles Paris, is now in the process of putting together a report. There is a great deal of writing to do. I'm sure there will be some recommendations in that report with respect to disabled people. I would ask you to have a look at the existing code. I know the term "disabled" is not specifically mentioned. But when we look under the provisions of reasonable cause, which are really the thrust.... In sections 3, 8 and 9 it's clear that a person cannot be discriminated against on the basis of disability unless the employer — that's under section 8 — or the service provider, under section 3, can show reasonable cause for such discrimination.

I think the member is aware that the human rights branch has accepted, investigated and resolved complaints relating to discrimination on the basis of individuals' presumed or actual disabilities. I have referred unsettled cases in this area to boards of inquiry, pursuant to section 16 of the Code. As a matter of fact, in one particular case I really disagreed with the decision of the board, and I consented to an appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

With respect to any potential amendment to the code, Madam Member, I think I will wait to see the recommendations of the report that is coming in from the new Human Rights Commission.

Regarding the placement program in the Ministry of Labour: as you are aware, we do have such a program. Your figure of 170 employees is probably very close. It might be right on; I know it's in that area. I think your point is: more. I don't question that for a moment. But things take time to change. It wasn't so long ago that ladies were not involved as directors or executive directors in the Ministry of Labour. Now there are 12, as I mentioned to the House. It takes time. I can't do all of this overnight; I think the member recognizes that. In particular, women in positions of some responsibility.... Commensurate with that responsibility is the appropriate income. I think we're making some progress.

We intend to provide training for the disabled and disadvantaged who are not job-ready. I think you are aware that right now this is one of the issues on the table with respect to the BCGEU and GERB. We heard a bit about that today.

[ Page 8823 ]

They have a block implementation program which they wish to incorporate in the memorandum of agreement. I'm not going to pass any further comment on that, and I think the member can understand why.

I think that covers it. There is money in the fund. We'll do our level best to see if we can improve the numbers.

MS. BROWN: I want to tell the minister — and I'm not dealing with legislation — that a brief was presented by the Associated Disabled Persons of British Columbia to the Human Rights Commission. They said:

"Our final request is the immediate amendment of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which the aforementioned conference and the last Human Rights Commission both advocate. The amendment specifically would include making physical, mental and emotional disabilities prohibited grounds of discrimination in accommodation, service and facility, employment and tenancy. It is not sufficient to lump this category under 'without reasonable cause.' "

The disabled community have found that the section dealing with reasonable cause is not meeting the need, and they would like to have some more straightforward and clear amendment in terms of their own coverage.

I mentioned the expansion of vocational training, and the minister said that there was money for it. I wonder if he would give me the exact figures for the increase.

Finally, I want to assure him that I do not agree with him that it cannot be done overnight. I do not understand why it took you so long to hire women in positions of authority in your ministry or why it's taking other ministries so long. I do not understand why it cannot be done overnight. I do not understand the difference in terms of ability which you and your government perceive between men and women or between disabled people who are competent and other people who are. I certainly do not endorse your concept that it cannot be done overnight. All it needs is a commitment to it, and it can be done overnight.

The final thing I wanted to raise under this, Mr. Chairman, has to do with equal pay for work of equal value. I'm going to be really brief about this, because I've talked about it so many times. Surely to goodness, this is the year when it's going to happen. Let's have no more talk about how we're going to deal with poverty and women by increasing welfare allotments, little training programs and little band-aid things. If women were paid for the value of the work they do — or we do — then there would not be the statistics that we have in this country showing the majority of the poverty component to be women.

I know that the minister in the past, although he supported the concept of equal pay for equal work, was reluctant to deal with the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. using the argument that it's hard to measure value. Well, no profession has that problem. If you're a doctor, whether you're male or female, your income is set. If you're a lawyer, whether you're male or female, the income is the same. In other words, what you do is not affix the income to the sex of the person doing the job; you affix the salary to the job. So that old argument about not being able to place a value on work doesn't hold water any more. Go to the professions and ask them how they did it — how teachers were able to find out that male and female teachers should be paid the same, and the same with engineers, lawyers, doctors and other professions — and maybe you'll learn something about how you place a value on the work done by an office assistant or a clerical person — work done predominantly by women.

The solution is not to encourage all women to go into nontraditional jobs. The jobs that women now do are valuable jobs and critical jobs. If you think that's not true, let every clerical worker in this province walk off the job one day and see if this province isn't shut down immediately. So let's have some equal pay for work of equal value before this year is out, please.

MRS. WALLACE: I'll certainly defer to the minister, if he....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You don't want to hear the answer, do you?

MRS. WALLACE: I don't think the minister has the answer — that's the problem. He's not getting up to answer, because he is not prepared to bring in equal pay for work of equal value.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Just following along the same line, I want to deal with another area where women are discriminated against, and that is in the area of retirement. There was a case recently with a school district in my constituency, where the school trustees were forced to retire a female teacher because she had reached the age of 60, and under the act that governs their pensions. she was required to retire. This case is certainly in contravention of the Human Rights Commission's rulings, which have indicated that the same decision should apply for both male and female. A copy of this letter, which was sent to the chairman of the Superannuation Commission, was also sent to the Human Rights Commission. The school board was very upset about the action they were forced to take in this particular instance, and it certainly is a contravention of that, woman's human rights to be forced to retire because of legislation. Now I know the legislation doesn't come within this minister's responsibilities, but the Human Rights Commission certainly comes within his terms of reference. I would urge him to take a good look at that situation and bring some pressure to bear to ensure that women in the upper-level age groups in the workforce are treated with the same consideration and the same standards as men.

I just wanted to add a word to what my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said relative to the position of the farmworkers. I want to do it because it's well known that I speak for the agricultural community in this Legislature and around this province, as far as the opposition goes. I want to go on the record as stating that the great majority of farmers in this province abhor just as much as we all do the situation facing the farmworkers in the Fraser Valley. They are certainly not condoning the things happening there. I just don't understand, and would like the minister to tell me, on what Legal basis he has decided that the regulations which came down, I think back in 1945, relative to safety standards in lumber camps and those sorts of places, are not applicable to farmworkers.

On what basis was that decision made? Is there any legal basis for that" On what basis are farmworkers being denied the same housing requirements — like three toilets for every

[ Page 8824 ]

30 people and one shower for every how many — that are set up for people who work in industry? What is the legal basis for doing that? I can see no difference; a worker is a worker. Why shouldn't they have the same kind of regulation covering them? That was passed in 1946; I found it. They're very minimal standards — adequate heating and sleeping. Those provisions have been guaranteed since 1946 for people who work in other industries, but are denied the people who work in agriculture.

We've talked about the transportation situation at some length. All you're doing is picking up another poor farm labourer who has been instructed by the contractor that he has to drive the truck. You're picking him up and penalizing him, and the contractor is going scot-free, taking almost half of the return the farmer is paying in order to line his own pocket. It's been estimated that some of those contractors are clearing in excess of $10,000 in a very short period of time; I believe they said a month. That's earned literally on the backs of that stoop-labour that's going out to work in the field.

There are some farmers who are negotiating directly with the workers. But the problem is the federal legislation, where they cannot get UIC stamps unless they work a certain number of days for one employer. That's the big stick that the contractors hold over their backs. Surely there's a way to ensure that those stamps can be provided without allowing this absolute slavery. It's like paid slaves out there. You say that you don't condone it, and that none of us condone it, and that's right. But what are you doing about it? You're going out after there's an accident where a woman has her back injured and another one has 14 stitches in her face, and are then starting some inspections. But all you're doing is picking up the drivers. It's just not good enough.

MS. BROWN: The injured woman is not covered by workers' compensation.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, she's there on her own, and a very low income at the best of times.

I just want to mention — I've mentioned it many times in this House so I'm not going to be too lengthy — my concern about occupational health and safety. I'm particularly concerned about those standards and their enforcement, because in times of economic downturn — and we're certainly in a time of economic downturn — the tendency is to ignore those things, to overlook them. That applies not just to management, not just to government, but also to the workers, who are afraid for their jobs.

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that it is your responsibility to ensure that our health standards are protected in the workplace. It's your responsibility to ensure that there is no slackening. I'm very concerned about the study being conducted on Vancouver Island by some of the trade unions relative to the disposal of pentachlorophenol, which is apparently being burned in the Alberni Valley. The wood waste, the sludge and so on, are being taken there and burned. This is an area where the air currents are.... Well, nobody knows what they are, but there's a very stagnant air situation in that valley. We don't know where that fallout will come down, or what it will be. I'm concerned too about my own constituency. The Western Forest Products mill at Honeymoon Bay is being dismantled; it's closed down; and there's a large dip tank there. They have been transporting the dip solution to B.C. Forest Products. What regulations, what controls, and what safety protection affects the transportation of that? What is going to happen when they get the Liquid out and they come to the sludge in the bottom of that tank? The easiest thing the company could do, and the cheapest thing, from their point of view, would be to dump it in the lake some dark night. What are you doing to ensure that this doesn't happen?

Such things are your responsibility, Mr. Minister. It's your responsibility to protect the health of the workers in this province and the people who are affected by those kinds of industrial wastes, because that lake water is used for drinking.

I want to bring up another subject, Mr. Minister, one that we have discussed by letter. I am glad to note that the regulations for propane have been transferred to one minister's responsibility. I hope we will now have inspections, because we didn't have inspections. The whole problem of apprenticing, of journeymen and licensing is involved here. I urge that the same action taken for propane be taken for oil installations, because we have exactly the same problem. In fact, it's been estimated that the loss and the hazards are perhaps greater with oil.

I would like to read into the record a letter that I received from a qualified oil-burner installer in the Cowichan Valley. He is very concerned about the number of unqualified oil burner service people who represent themselves as being qualified to the public. In support of that contention, on different occasions he has provided me with the names of two different operators in the area who say they are qualified oil burner installers. I called the apprentice office in Burnaby and was advised no licences had been issued, no exams set, there were no applications to write exams from either of those people.

In another instance, a young chap came to work for him. He worked for about four months, apparently thought he'd learned everything there was to learn, and set up his own business. As far as the public knows, he's a qualified journeyman.

My correspondent in Duncan says the public is getting short-changed, in reference to the people doing work; that it's very poor and unqualified. In a lot of cases it's old-age pensioners: "In many cases I have been called in to repair and clean up messes left by untrained and unqualified service people. Of course the customer has paid them large amounts of money for the repairs and they were done poorly."

Fire chiefs, fire marshals and firemen in this city and all over the province are quite concerned. An oil burner improperly serviced and adjusted can be more volatile than a gas furnace. Some fire insurance companies are placing a small note in their policies mentioning that no claims will be honored if the heating equipment is not serviced by qualified tradesmen. How is the customer to know? As I understand it, there are only seven trades in this province that require licensing: plumbing, steamfitting, pipefitting, refrigeration, sprinkler-fitting and sheet metal. Those are the only ones that require a licence to operate. So people can say they're qualified, and you can set up all your apprenticeship programs, journeyman classifications and exams, but people can still go out and do the job.

I was horrified to learn that even the electrical trade is not licensed, that you do not have to have a licence to operate. Sure you're supposed to be a journeyman and you have to follow the code, but you don't have to have a licence. And you certainly don't have to have one for gas and oil installations. At least with electricity we have an inspector and inspection is enforced; but with gas and oil we don't even

[ Page 8825 ]

have that. Hopefully we will get it with gas. I say "hopefully" because I'm not so sure with this minister. He seems to be a talker and not a doer. He gets up and tells us how much he agrees with these things, but then they just don't happen. As far as oil goes, there's nothing to ensure this.

So I would certainly like some answers from that minister as to what he's proposing. We have an apprenticeship program and he tells us there are no positions — there are more applicants than there are jobs or more people wanting to be trained than he needs to train. Yet you can pick up almost anything — I have a paper here, a little bulletin that's put out by the mining society — and they're saying that they're desperate for qualified operators. That may have been out a month or two ago, but we have to look ahead and train ahead. Certainly, if in a little city like Duncan we can find at least three unqualified oil-burner operators that I happen to know about who are operating there, just through queries that I have made to the apprentice board, and if we have no inspections and no licensing, what is the incentive, what is the reason, for anyone to bother to take the apprenticeship course or to write the exams?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Another instance that came to mind was the chap who came in from Manitoba. Now in Manitoba you have to have a licence; he was a qualified journeyman oil-burner maintenance man in Manitoba, and he had his licence from there. He went down and thought he could get a licence to operate in B.C., but you know there is no such thing as a licence. He said: "Well, can I write my exam?" And they said: "Well, go home, and we'll send you a letter and maybe tell you when you can write it." You know, he was right there, but that was the response he got. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a lot missing there.

Of course, there is also the licensing of TV technicians. I have a great file on that, and you will recall that you have some tremendously lengthy correspondence with both me and one of my constituents who has the same concerns. The safety problem isn't involved there, as it is with the oil and gas installations, but it's still the same concern of why anybody would bother to go out, take the course, train and become qualified, if just anybody can go in and open up a repair shop and claim that they're qualified. That's what's happening in these trades, and that's the concern that I wanted to raise with this minister on that particular subject.

This hour is growing late, and I think perhaps I will just let it go at that. I had some other items I wanted to raise, but they're not that urgent.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think what the member for Cowichan-Malahat is really looking for is compulsory certification all around. I suppose if that were introduced, there would be a problem. There isn't for TV technicians. and I gather there isn't for furnace repairmen. I'll have a look at it and will have my people look at it, and see whether or not there's something to be done. I guess the question is really whether or not a business licence ought to be issued by the city unless they can establish that they have a certificate.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, come on. That's your job.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm just saying that perhaps they ought to insist on it, if they wish. We can have a look at this as well.

You mentioned inspections. If you would take the time to have a look at the reports of the WCB for the last two years, you'd find a significant increase in the number of inspections taking place. That's the function of the WCB. Yes, if we encounter or hear about problems. obviously we're going to relay them to the occupational environment branch in the ministry, and fire them over.

MRS. WALLACE: WCB inspection?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You were talking about inspections. You were talking about the concern you had with respect to a mill which has been closed. You were wondering about someone moving, and what would happen to the waste, particularly the sludge. Presumably the water is close by and maybe convenient when nobody's looking. I suspect that's what your concern is, and it's a justifiable one too. The Ministry of Environment, I'm sure, is somewhat concerned about it. If you have a concern with that particular mill, drop me a note on it and I'll follow through for you.

The inspections have been — only on since 1974 with respect to farm-labour contractors. One of the problems that you mentioned is the driver and the owner. I've got that very problem now. Don't worry, the owner is being looked at. The question is whether or not it's a farm-labour contractor. I'm not so sure it is. It just may be that he is an employee of the particular farm that was bringing the people in.

One of the concerns I have is this. I go back to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). You're talking about the number of disabled people that we can get into government. Our program, I have to tell you, was frustrated this year. It's part of the bargaining that's going on. We wanted to move, but it was blocked.

I can only say that I don't know how much change there was ten, nine or eight years ago with respect to women in the ministry for which I'm responsible. All I know is that now there's been a change that has come recently.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I was just wondering about the influence you had on your party between 1972 and 1975, Madam Member. There wasn't any. That became clear.

MS. BROWN: On March 25, 1981, the B.C. Court of Appeal decided that under the B.C. Human Rights Code employers cannot be held liable for acts of discrimination by their employees. This is a loophole which the minister should close at once. Or has he already taken steps to do so?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Would you repeat that question, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a point of legislation, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: No, I won't discuss the legislation, Mr. Chairman. I'll just say that the Human Rights Commission is not able to discharge its responsibilities to the people of British Columbia because of a decision brought down by the B.C. Court of Appeal on March 25 which holds that an

[ Page 8826 ]

employer cannot be held liable when an employee is guilty of an act of discrimination. That's a loophole. Has the minister made any moves to close it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I presume that's the section which we amended last year involving vicarious liability. It stemmed from a particular case involving an apartment where the owner tried to absolve himself from any responsibility or liability with respect to the acts of an employee or a servant. We amended the Code last year to handle the matter of vicarious liability. I'm sure that's what you're referring to.

MS. BROWN: It's just that I've got a letter from this woman who applied for a job as a janitor in Coquitlam and they have still refused to hire her. I'll suggest to her that she try that section of the Code.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister said I was speaking about inspections. Well, yes, inspections from WCB relative to the safety hazards in the workplace, but I was talking about the lack of inspection on oil-burner and gas-burner installations. That's the sort of thing that I'm talking about. With the gas burner, hopefully that's going to happen — similar to electricity. I say hopefully, with questions all around it. But there is no provision for the oil burner.

MS. SANFORD: The interesting thing about the introductory remarks made by the Minister of Labour today is that not once did he refer to the 237,000 people who are unemployed — not once, even though those people are looking today to Victoria to the minister. Not once did he come up with any sort of hope for them in terms of any new initiatives as far as the government and employment is concerned.

I've already mentioned the program which is headed up by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I don't accept the minister's explanation at all about that youth employment program. There was no funding for it, either under the minister's vote or in schedule B, where they had shuffled all the figures across for apprenticeship training and that sort of thing. Where was that youth employment program vote? It's not there at all. They've had to take that out of new funds, because they haven't provided any money for that youth employment program this year. So I just don't accept the minister's response on that.

The government — I raised this last year — still does not have any apprentices to speak of. I don't know of one. I do know that the B.C. Buildings Corporation, in the lower mainland alone, has 84 tradesman, but there's not one apprentice. I raised this with the minister before, and I thought that by now he would have taken some action and come up with some kind of training program. That minister prides himself in what he's doing in apprenticeship training. Yet this government still doesn't have any apprentices, nor is it carrying its share of the load in any way, shape or form as far as apprenticeship training is concerned.

By his silence today, he condones the deplorable set of criteria contained in that GERB strike manual. He did not get up once to suggest that he did not support that manual. That indicates to us that he does not have any confidence in the working people of this province, and as a result does not deserve to sit in that chair as Minister of Labour.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Mr. Chabot) is not keen to have the deficiencies of this particular minister discussed, but I'd be quite happy to comply. I'd be quite happy to move a reduction in vote 57 of $11,735, the reason being that this minister's office has an increase of 69.6 percent in travel expenses. Not only does the Minister of Labour not deal with unemployment, not only does he not care about the provisions in the strike manuals, he doesn't even realize they have a restraint program over there. Maybe the government wants to send him out of the country in the hope that he stays there.

That's a huge increase, Mr. Chairman, and I make that motion: that vote 57 be reduced by the sum of $11,735.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I agree. That resolution sounds good to me.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 28

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

Vote 57 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 8827 ]

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

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the annual audited financial statements for the Transpo 86 Corporation, now the Expo 86 Corporation, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the 1981 annual report of the Human Rights Commission of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

66 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 66) intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 27, in the proposed section 124.2 by inserting "or " after "contravenes section 17 or 22, ".