1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5533 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5533

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Kempf

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have the leave of the committee to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

We have in the galleries this morning 40 students, with their teachers,

who are guests of the Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver.

These students are from Quebec City. They are here to enjoy British

Columbia and this assembly. I might advise my colleague the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) that they come from the

constituency represented by Hon. Claude Morin. I would ask the

committee to welcome them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a

point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I should again draw to

the attention of the House standing order 8. We have a very important

debate this morning, and we only have seven members of the opposition

in the House. I think perhaps this particular order ought to be read

and explained to the House by yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

As members know, it is the responsibility of each and every member to

be in the House. It is beyond the control of the Chair to insist that

members attend committee.

On the same point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

I point out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that it only takes a

couple of members of the opposition to keep that incompetent government

in check.

MR. CHAIRMAN . That's not really a point of order, hon. member.

On vote 65: minister's office, $194,679.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I just want to make a couple of comments about some of the debate of

yesterday, particularly with regard to the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), who talked at length about the Vancouver Island pipeline. I

won't go into this at length today, but I think it's important that the

members understand a couple of things with regard to this whole matter.

First of all, it's important to realize why we're talking about a pipeline

to Vancouver Island at all. There was a very conscious social decision made

by this government to ensure that the last major population area of British

Columbia not now served with natural gas should be served with natural gas as

quickly as possible. It's a promise we made during the last election campaign

and it's a promise we intend to keep, so that the people on this island

can have their share of this resource. The costs of building that pipeline are

increasing every year. We're prepared to go ahead and make sure that that

gas lands on Vancouver Island at the earliest possible time.

want to talk a bit about the comparison of the two routes which have

been proposed in the past: the so-called northern route and the

southern route. It's really beyond me to understand how anyone could

take a look at those two routes on a map and in any way come up with

similar costs of construction for them, as some people have attempted

to do, including the member for Mackenzie. The northern route is 391

kilometres of new pipeline over some of the most adverse engineering

conditions in British Columbia. It includes a mile-long tunnel —

perhaps longer — through Casement Mountain. There are 30 river

crossings, with the concurrent possibility of damage to fisheries.

There are four compressor stations and over 140 kilometres of very

tough engineering and environmental conditions.

The southern

route, which is just 79 kilometres of new pipeline, using one river

crossing and no tunnels and having no severe environmental or

engineering problems, would cost — to land gas on Vancouver Island,

without talking about anything else, including distribution on the

Island — an estimated $125 million in 1980 dollars. The northern route,

to land gas on Vancouver Island, without taking into consideration the

distribution on the Island, is somewhat more than double that, in the

amount of $262 million. The southern route is half as costly in terms

of capital cost for construction.

I repeat that the northern

route is major, unconventional construction, with extensive bedrock and

excavation, large narrow canyons, unstable slopes with avalanche risks,

a lot of difficulty as well in the geothermal areas of Mount Meager and

30 river crossings presenting a risk to salmon and steelhead fisheries,

compared to a shorter route which has conventional construction on land

at least and construction under water which is well engineered, well

underway and completely feasible.

There is some talk about

why we should have chosen B.C. Hydro over some of the other proponents

of this line. I don't make any apologies for government making a

decision in this area, because I think government's responsibility is

to attempt to assess all of the questions and then make some decisions.

That's what this government has done. B.C. Hydro has the opportunity

for British Columbia control, both of its rates and of its new

construction. It will have ongoing regulation by the B.C. Utilities

Commission. It will have provincial control of its borrowing and

financing. In my opinion, it has done far more engineering and

feasibility studies and far more detailed surveys than any of the other

proponents. In fact, B.C. Hydro is ready to go today in order that we

can meet those in-service dates.

There are a couple of other matters in the consideration of these routes. I suppose that the most important one....

Certainly

I understand the difficulty that the people of Powell River have with

this selection, because, at least in the initial instance, Powell River

would not be served with natural gas by the southern pipeline. That's

not a unique situation, because there are a number of other areas of

British Columbia not yet being served with natural gas. I recall that

during my estimates in the last session the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was entreating the ministry, through me,

to ensure that natural gas extension goes forward to Revelstoke,

[ Page 5534 ]

which

is one of his communities. Other members in the House have asked me

that natural gas service be extended to the Peace River, the Columbia

Valley and a number of other areas. Those will have to be extended

sometime in the very near future if we are to meet our commitment of

ending our dependence on foreign imported oil in this province.

That

is a commitment we intend to honour, and it will be a program of this

government to extend natural gas to those areas not now served just as

quickly as the capacity can be physically extended. Powell River, theSunshine

Coast and Squamish will be part of those considerations as the

government sets its priority for further extension of natural gas

services beyond Vancouver Island. That will be done as a regular,

ongoing program of government, and for good reasons.

The

matter of a fertilizer plant.... I don't understand, first of all, how

anyone could possibly believe that a fertilizer plant could only be

built in one location of this province. We have fertilizer plants all

over the world. We have fertilizer plants in Alaska and Alberta, where

there aren't any of the conditions we have in British Columbia, such as

deep-water ports and other things which I'm told are necessary for the

fertilizer plant in British Columbia. But I can guarantee that if a

fertilizer plant is feasible for this province, if it's an economically

desirable and feasible project, it can be built in other areas besides

Powell River. It will be built somewhere in British Columbia if it is

economically and technically feasible.

I have invited the

consortium which is involved in that fertilizer plant — Chieftain Oil

of Calgary, Union Oil of California, British Columbia Resources

Investment Corporation, and Westcoast Transmission — to come before

government and make some proposals. To be perfectly frank and honest

with this assembly, we don't have much of a proposal before government

for a fertilizer plant. We do have a very short prospectus with very

little technical information from some companies who have said they

wish to build a fertilizer plant in British Columbia.

think as a good prudent government we need much more than that. We need

some firm proposals. We need to come to some agreement on the price any

company which builds a fertilizer plant will pay for the use of our

natural gas, because if the product to come from any endeavour in this

province using our natural gas is to be largely exported, as I

understand this product would be, then I don't believe that the people

of British Columbia would want their government to be selling that gas

at highly subsidized domestic prices. We're a long way from reaching

any agreement on the price that would have to be paid for British

Columbia's natural gas — the people's natural gas — to develop this

kind of industry. So I say again, there is a lot of work to be done

between government and the industrial proponents. Also, the opportunity

is available in many parts of British Columbia to develop this kind of

industrial concern.

I want to talk a bit about the public

hearings. The members opposite have very short memories. Public

hearings on this matter were held. In 1972 there were extensive public

hearings with the same players who were in the action this year.

Westcoast Transmission, Centennial and British Columbia Hydro were all

a part of those extensive public hearings held by the previous Social

Credit government, beginning in the spring of 1972 and ending late in

the year. The evidence given at those public hearings — we've had the

opportunity to review it extensively — was basically the same as the

evidence put forward to us during our consideration of the pipeline in

the past year and a half.

One thing that has certainly

changed is the amount of money required to build the pipeline. If the

pipeline proposals had not been scuttled in 1972, following the

election of the NDP government, we would have had a pipeline today for

about half the cost. Those members opposite have very short memories. I

don't know what happened as a result of those hearings. I know that the

hearings ended just about the time the election was called. That was

the last we ever heard about natural gas on Vancouver Island until this

government was elected. I don't know why they decided that the people

of Vancouver Island didn't deserve natural gas. But I'll tell you, Mr.

Chairman, that when the members opposite were government they

effectively denied the opportunity of natural gas to Vancouver Island

citizens.

I would also like to refer to the short memory of the member for Mackenzie when he....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

First of all I'd like to say that I'm not attacking anyone. The member

for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says I'm attacking Don Lockstead while he's

away. Well, the member for Mackenzie, if he were really interested in

the subject he raised last night, would have been here today to listen

to the answer and to take

part in the debate.

One thing even

the member for Alberni would agree with is that I give answers to

questions asked of me in the House. They may not always like the

answers, but I give them.

With regard to the public hearing

mentioned by the member for Mackenzie in this debate yesterday, I would

just remind the members of the House again that public hearings were

held. They were held very extensively; all of that evidence is

available to the government and was part of the government's

deliberations in making decisions.

I wonder about those

members opposite sometimes. I mean, how do they really expect to have

it both ways? How can you talk out of both sides of your mouth at the

same time? The member for Mackenzie says: "Hold public hearings." What

did the NDP say in 1972? "Dump the public hearings. Scrap the public

hearings. You don't need public hearings." I'm quoting the member for

Vancouver East. He urged the government to abandon the proposed public

hearings by the Utilities Commission on a natural gas pipeline to

Vancouver Island, and to give it to B.C. Hydro. That's what Mr.

Macdonald said.

What did the NDP opposition leader in those

days, Dave Barrett, say Monday? He said B.C. Hydro customers will be

cheated if the government selects a private company instead of Hydro to

supply gas to Vancouver Island. What else did Mr. Barrett say? "Barrett

Says Government Should Build the Pipeline." "Opposition leader Dave

Barrett called on Premier W.A.C. Bennett today to develop a natural gas

pipeline to Vancouver Island as a public enterprise, instead of leaving

it to private industry." "NDP Wants Hydro. Natural Gas Pipeline Still

in Air." "Don't hold the public hearings; give it to Hydro." Mr.

Chairman, those members opposite don't know what they're talking about;

at least if they do, they talk about different things at different

times. We had public hearings, we had the opportunity for a natural gas

pipeline to Vancouver Island in 1972, and for some strange reason the

NDP refused to give the people of Vancouver Island natural gas. We're

going to give it to them, and they're going to be

[ Page

5535 ]

served by a resource which is in plentiful supply in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before recognizing the member for Skeena, I would remind all members

that in the House we do not use the names of members; we refer to them

by riding.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the

minister a question with respect to the instruction given to the

Utilities Commission with respect to rates and other matters, but

particularly rates of B.C. Hydro as mentioned in a press release issued

by the minister on March 20, 1981. He said: "The purpose of the

directive" — that is, the directive to increase the interest-coverage

ratio and debt-equity ratio of B.C. Hydro's finances — "is to require

Hydro to achieve a financial position that allows it to borrow funds on

the most economic terms available." A commendable approach, but I

wonder how that fits in with the attainment that was tremendously

lauded by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on May 9, 1980, to

the effect that Hydro and the provincial government had received a

triple-A rating from Moody's and Standard and Poor in the United

States. According to the Minister of Finance, that attainment put Hydro

precisely in the position of being able to borrow on the most economic

terms available. That being the case, why is there the necessity of

requiring basically an increase in rates in order that Hydro would have

a higher degree of retained earnings to achieve that 1.3 to 1

interest-coverage ratio? Wasn't that obtained by the triple-A rating

received from Moody's and Standard and Poor?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

It would be helpful to know that for several years — at least six years

— it has been policy within Hydro, through the policy of the board of

directors, that they achieve the debt-equity relationship and interest

ratio that we put in that order. However, with the commencement of the

British Columbia Utilities Commission's regulation of British Columbia

Hydro it wasn't good enough that that just be a board policy, because

any regulatory authority must take into account just the things that it

can see in terms of the responsibility and operation of Hydro and may

not be able to take into account what would be an internal policy or

for some other reason known only to the regulatory authority — or

perhaps, taking it to some broader concept, may not agree with that

policy. In the interests of attaining the policy which has been in

place on a gradual basis over the last five or six years, it was felt

by the government that in order to retain our good borrowing position

and our triple-A rating, and to give Hydro the kind of position with

relation to its debt equity and interest that other hydro corporations

in Canada have, it was required that a directive be given to the B.C.

Utilities Commission.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: As I understand it, Hydro was maintaining that 1.3 to 1 ratio.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, they were not.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They were attempting to get there gradually.

MR. HOWARD: They were attempting to get there, but had not reached there.

still seems passing strange that the Minister of Finance should have

extolled the value of the triple-A rating by saying that that in itself

gave Hydro the most advantageous rate in the marketplace. All I'm

saying is that it seems passing strange that the triple-A rating, so

the Minister of Finance says, did what the 1.3 to 1 ratio seeks to

accomplish. The result is an increase in rates, if they desire to do

that, in order to maintain that 30 percent of retained earnings. If

they don't get it, they get it out of higher rates to the customers,

having accomplished it both ways, by the sounds of things. In any

event, it just puts into question the triple-A rating that was attained

and given by Standard and Poor and Moody's in the United States. It

puts into question the earlier statement of the Minister of Finance

about the tremendous value that would be. I know the minister is

shaking his head and saying no, that's not so. He's made his case and I

make my case, that's all.

I want to talk very briefly, if I

could, Mr. Chairman, about the aluminum Company of Canada's agreement

with respect to what's loosely referred to as Kemano II — in other

words the provisions of the agreement and the water licence issued in

1950 or around that period of time to give Alcan the right, extending

over a 50-year period, to build dams and divert certain watercourses in

the province in order to establish a certain level of hydroelectric

potential and production for Alcan. Kemano II is and has been the

generally accepted identification of that proposal and that provision

by a great many people in the north who are to be affected by that.

Admittedly, the minister saw fit sometime last year to take up the

cudgels on behalf of Alcan and say: "O, no, it's not called Kemano II:

the proper designation is the Kemano completion project." Alcan has

been saying this for some time. All I'm putting across, Mr. Chairman,

is that residents in Vanderhoof, Houston, Prince George, Smithers and

all along the CN north line and Highway 16 have come to refer to the

project as Kemano II. One falls into the habit of using that phrase to

keep in tune with the opinion and the views that the residents in that

area have.

One proposition that I want to put forward is

this: Alcan is and will be the beneficiary of the licence and the right

to dam and divert certain water in this province. The Aluminum Company

of Canada is the holder of that water licence and is the signatory,

along with the government, to a contract which the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) classified as a valid contract. Alcan is

to reap the benefits of that particular project. Alcan was intent upon

going full-scale, reflecting the conditions of the agreement one

hundred percent.

A great deal of public opposition in the

area developed, as you know, Mr. Chairman, regarding that proposal. In

all of the earlier attempts by Alcan to condition the general public to

accept the Kemano II or Kemano completion project, the government of

the day, this government, was virtually silent in protecting the public

interest. The minister made a few comments about there being a

moratorium on the project. That wasn't a moratorium by any government

decision; it was a moratorium that Alcan was talking about. The

minister's concept of a moratorium was that they hadn't applied to

proceed with the project.

Within the government — both at

the cabinet committee level and at the public service deputy minister

level — meetings had been held with Alcan to discuss the steps

necessary to get to the point of having theKemano 11 or

[ Page 5536 ]

Kemano

completion project proceed at a full-scale, one hundred percent level

as contemplated in the water licence. The Aluminum Company of Canada,

to its credit — and not to the credit of this government, because this

government didn't do a blessed thing about it — and to the credit of

the communities affected and proposed to be affected by that Kemano

completion or Kemano II project, and to Alcan's credit, who responded

to public interest and public pressure — alteration took place with

respect to Alcan's desires.... Alcan indicated at one point that it

would be necessary for Alcan to take other people's interests in the

area into account and has proceeded along in that direction.

must not lose sight of the fact that Alcan is to be the beneficiary.

Alcan is the private corporation which holds what the Minister of

Environment calls a valid contract with the government of B.C. It will

be Alcan that has the increased power-generating capacity developed as

a result of this project, to whatever extent it proceeds. Alcan will

reap the monetary benefits, whether it uses the power for expansion of

its smelting capacity or whether it sells the power to somebody else,

as it does now with power surplus to its own needs by selling it to

B.C. Hydro.

Alcan is currently embarking upon a series of

meetings with the general public — with organizations and groups in

that whole area and elsewhere — trying to explain its current position:

how Alcan is interested in the multiple-use concept and how Alcan is

going to protect the public interest. I see that basically as a

conflict of interest. The conflict is that the Aluminum Company of

Canada — a private corporation and the holder of what the Minister of

Environment calls a valid contract to build those dams — cannot try to

be, at the same time, the beneficiary of the project and the protector

of the public interest. I submit to the minister that within our

society the element charged with the responsibility of protecting the

public interest is the government and this Legislature. This is the

group elected to serve the interests of all the people.

The

very existence of government carries with it that responsibility to

preserve, enhance and protect the public interest. It should not be

left to a private corporation, which is going to benefit from the

hydroelectric project, to play the role of protector of the public

interest. Regardless of what one may think about the Aluminum Company

of Canada, its public image, its relationship to communities, its

stature in the community, in Canada or elsewhere in the world, it is

still playing both roles. I don't think that really serves the public

interest to the full.

Alcan is a private corporation and is

the holder of what the Minister of Environment classifies as a valid

contract with the government. Alcan has a responsibility to itself to

see that its interests are protected, enhanced and advanced. The

government plays the other role and has the other responsibility. I'm

inclined to think that as long as Alcan is permitted in an unrestrained

way to represent itself as being the preserver and protector of the

public interest in this regard, and is able to say, "Yes, we are going

to respond to what we, Alcan, perceive as being the public interest in

water use, agriculture, fisheries and the like," then the public

interest is not being served adequately. That is the responsibility of

government. I really do believe that it is the government's

responsibility to conduct these public hearings, to conduct public

information sessions, to point out what the government perceives as its

responsibilities in preserving and protecting the public interest. As

long as the government remains silent, then in the final analysis —

regardless of the well-meaning intentions of the officers of Alcan —

the balance sheet, not the public interest, regrettably, will be the

final determinant as far as that company is concerned.

I'll

mention a case in point. Last year there was a conflict over what the

Aluminum Company of Canada perceived as its activity in preserving

stocks of fish. It said it could do that in the Nechako River by

releasing only a certain volume of water over the spillway at Skins

Lake. It said that would be adequate to keep the water at a certain

level and at a certain temperature in order to ensure that the fish

stocks in that river were not killed by the level of water or by an

unduly high water temperature.

That matter was resolved with

the federal Fisheries department and Alcan through the courts, and the

courts said they had to release this amount of water. Alcan is

currently talking about an alternative approach. The alternative is not

to spill water over the top of the spillway at Skins Lake, but

apparently to drill or drive a diversion tunnel which will take water

not from the top but from the bottom of the reservoir, where it is much

cooler than it is on the surface. Releasing colder water out of the

bottom of the reservoir will presumably keep the water level and

certainly the water temperature in the Nechako at a level which Alcan

seems to think is satisfactory for the preservation of fish.

Whether

that is so or not I'm not really competent to determine, but I make the

point to show that Alcan has embarked upon this second course of

expanding its role in preserving the public interest by making a

determination that basically is the responsibility of government. Yes,

the Federal fisheries department is involved. The provincial government

is also involved. I'm going to get to that now.

The

Industrial Development Act is a statute passed by this Legislature in

1949 or 1950. The agreement with Alcan was entered into pursuant to

that act, which legalized the water licence and said they could do

certain things. There is a provision in the Industrial Development Act

that says any agreement entered into under that act — and the agreement

entered into under it is the agreement with Alcan — shall contain a

provision protecting the fisheries to the extent that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council so decides. I'm paraphrasing and not

quoting any exact words — I don't recall them — but that was the force

of the law.

The agreement signed with Alcan contained no

such provision, no reference whatever to the preservation and

protection of fisheries, even though the statute said it could be done.

There is a further provision in the Industrial Development Act that

states that the agreement, or any agreement entered into under that act

— and it's the agreement with Alcan that we're talking about — can be

varied if it was legal to vary it in the first instance. It was legal.

The statute said that contract or any agreement under it could contain

a provision relating to the preservation and protection of fisheries. A

further

section said — if you missed it the first time around — that if

it's not in the agreement the first time around you can go back and

alter that agreement.

It's nice that the government has that

responsibility, the statutory authority to proceed in the direction of

preserving the public interest insofar as the fisheries are concerned,

and to say: "We, the government of the province of British Columbia, so

authorized by this Legislature, are now going to deal with Alcan and

discharge our" — that is, the government's — "public responsibility for

the preservation of the fisheries and include in that agreement a

provision so protecting them." So long as there's an absence of any

activity in that

[ Page 5537 ]

regard,

and it's left to the Aluminum Company of Canada, the holder of this

so-called valid contract, to proceed to take what it understands from

its point of view is action to preserve fisheries, then we're in that

conflict-of-interest position again. What Alcan is proposing to do may

be quite correct and adequate from a fisheries and biological point of

view. But I submit that it should not be left to a private corporation

to make that determination. I submit this is where the government's

responsibility lies.

It's not sufficient for the government

to say: "Well, we have the Utilities Commission Act and we have the

B.C. Utilities Commission, and under that act, if an application is

made for an energy certificate to proceed to build those dams, then we

might have public hearings somewhere down the road." I submit that

government has got to be involved in this from the very beginning and

represent the interests of the general public in that area, and not let

Alcan, as the holder of the licence and beneficiary of the project, be

able to proceed and make all the decisions, statements and examinations

and pass itself off as the protector of the public interest, do

everything that it perceives as correct to do, and then, somewhere down

the road, end up before a public hearing. I submit that government

should be involved in that process right from the beginning, protecting

the public interest.

There are municipalities involved in

that area. There are municipalities that require a domestic water

supply and have an interest in agricultural land that is within the

municipalities. They're interested in the water table. They're

interested in the flows in the Nechako River as well. There are

municipalities on the other side of the divide of those waters that

flow into the Skeena too that have a concern. It makes me wonder why it

is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who

made quite a point a while ago about attendance in the House, has now

absconded from the House. He's not even here to pay attention to the

subject matter in which he, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, should be

interested. In fact, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is very seldom

in the House. He makes an entrance right at the beginning, makes a big

splash and then he takes off. He flits in, raises frivolous points of

order and so on.

This is a matter of tremendous interest to

municipalities in that area, because municipalities will have visited

upon them whatever awkward affects there might be of Alcan proceeding

to do whatever it decides to do, subject, of course, to some hearing

process. We can't escape from the fact that the government has

identified the contract with Alcan as being a valid one. I think in law

you will find that if government has said, as it has said, that this is

a valid agreement, any hearing process under the Utilities Commission

Act won't mean very much. It will mean a great deal more if the

government would only activate itself now to serve the public interest.

Apart from that, B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation, has a vested interest in

the Kemano II project. As I said earlier, B.C. Hydro now buys power from Alcan

which is surplus to Alcan's needs. That was part of the difficulty last

year which saw Alcan in a conflict with the federal Fisheries department over

the amount of water that should be released over the Skins Lake spillway. Alcan

says: "We are releasing sufficient water to protect the fisheries."

What they were saying on the other side was: "We want to keep that reservoir

as filled up as we possibly can in order to run the water out through the tunnel

complex and the pen stocks into Kemano, to produce the maximum amount of electrical

energy that we can because we've got a contract to sell it to B.C. Hydro.

We're bringing in an income of something in the neighbourhood of $1 million

a month, selling what was identified as surplus electrical generating capacity

to B.C. Hydro."

That's

an example of a conflict between private interest and the public

interest. This government, maybe through some connivance with B.C.

Hydro — maybe it was some agreement with B.C. Hydro — sought not to

interfere in that conflict. There was the conflict. Alcan says: "We

keep the reservoir full to the limit. We generate as much electricity

as we can at Kemano because we can sell that electricity to B.C. Hydro

for $1 million a month." You put that on one side of the ledger and on

the other side of the ledger you put the interest of the general public

in fisheries matters that should have been a prime consideration of

this government, and on which side of the equation did Alcan opt to

fall? They opted to proceed with keeping as much water in the reservoir

as they could to produce as much electricity as they could in order to

sell it to B.C. Hydro. It was only through the intervention of the

courts that the federal Fisheries department was able to make the case

that by Alcan proceeding in that direction they were, in fact, injuring

the fisheries potential of the Nechako River. There's an example that I

give, only to point out that there is a conflict between the private

and the public interest. The private interest is served by Alcan; the

public interest — at least in theory as far as this government is

concerned — is to be served by the government.

Alcan has an

interest in seeing that Kemano II or the Kemano completion project

proceeds right through to the fall. A brochure which B.C. Hydro issued

sometime last year, projecting their load demand into the 1980s and the

source of electrical energy to provide for that load, included a

provision which had Alcan purchase.... In other words, part of their

projection contained the anticipation — indeed, the hope as far as B.C.

Hydro was concerned — that Alcan would be able to proceed with its

Kemano II or Kemano completion project and create additional electrical

energy capacity. B.C. Hydro was there prepared to buy that. It was in

their forecasts. They were prepared to buy and desirous of buying

three-quarters of the additional electrical generating capacity at

Kemano. I submit that that may well be one of the other reasons that

this government and this minister are relatively silent, and by silence

are permitting Alcan to be cast and represent itself in the role of

preserving and protecting the public interest. I submit to you that

Alcan cannot play both of those roles.

It's not going to be

very helpful if that situation prevails. We have many instances in this

province of cases where government has abandoned the public interest

and passed on the preservation of that public interest to a private

corporation. The Alcan agreement is a prime case in point, Mr.

Chairman. The Alcan agreement was signed for a 50-year period. A water

licence was issued in 1950 for a 50-year period, valid until the year

2000. The government of that day completely disregarded the provision

in the statute that said they should preserve the public interest

insofar as fisheries are concerned. It completely disregarded any

consideration of what future generations may desire to see happen by

giving Alcan a carte blanche licence for a 50-year period. It

completely disregarded — in fact, it didn't even consider, as,

admittedly, most people were not considering at that time —

environmental matters. I think that is a case in point of a government

visiting upon future generations the results of its short-sighted

policy.

[ Page 5538 ]

Corporations

in this land do their planning and make their activities contingent

upon looking as far into the future as they possibly can. Governments

have short-term advantages they look to; governments tend to look to

the next election. That's what happened in that period of time, because

one of my predecessors representing this constituency, E.T. Kenney, was

the Minister of Lands and Forests in the then coalition government that

consummated and negotiated that agreement with Alcan and was the father

or the mother of the Industrial Development Act. That was a very

short-sighted look at the situation. Alcan, a worldwide multinational

corporation, had a vision that projected Alcan's interests at least 50

years into the future. We are now seeing what that can mean.

submit that as long as this or any other government persists in playing

a role of silence when it comes to the public interest, Alcan is going

to go its own merry way and do things as its balance sheet, its board

of directors and the profit motive dictate. The public interest will

come second in that regard. I'm not maligning Alcan in saying this. I'm

just putting forward a statement of facts that basically neither Alcan

or any other private corporation will disagree with. They know where

their interests are and what they perceive they should do, and they're

going to proceed to do it. As long as government remains silent, the

general public is going to be the loser in that situation.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a few words to the debate on this

ministry. I think one thing we lose sight of is that a major part of

this ministry is mining. The opposition in this House would perhaps not

like to discuss or debate the subject of mining, because it is a black

mark on their record as government that many people in this province

are prone to forget about. We are often criticized for going back into

their record, but this is one item which we refuse to overlook. Mining

is the number two industry in this province.

I have some

personal experience in terms of the condition in which that government

left this industry at the time the government changed in 1975. By

personal experience I'm referring to my own responsibility as Minister

of Finance and the problems we faced at that time due to the economy

generally — significantly focused on the drastic drop in revenues from

the mining industry — and the decisions which had to be made by our

government as a result of those activities — basically a policy of

leaving resources in the ground and taxing them so that there would be

no incentive or attraction to that industry. Ask anyone in the mining

industry if that is not a fact of life.

Just to briefly

explain the significance of this, in late 1974 and 1975 Price

Waterhouse and Co. were requested to do a report for the Mining

Association of British Columbia. The results indicated that the mining

industry was then in deep financial trouble. Thousands of jobs had been

lost, new investment had declined sharply and — listen to this, Mr.

Chairman — the level of exploration was at its lowest in more than a

decade. That's the point that I want to stress here today.

Also

among the highlights of that study were the following. Three mines were

closed in 1974 and many others undertook substantial production

cutbacks resulting in the layoffs of thousands of workers. Return on

investment decreased by more than 50 percent compared to 1973 — that

is, that drop took place in 1974 — helping to further discourage the

already dismal investment climate in British Columbia.

The

report states that capital flow to mining companies was also reduced by

more than one-half, but taxes more than doubled. This became clearly

evident in 1974 when several major companies announced plans for

cutting back investment in the B.C. mining industry and diversifying

into other areas and other industries.

Finally, the Price

Waterhouse and Co. report states that the overall return on investment

within the industry was reduced in 1974 to 12.7 percent, barely a

percentage point higher than the return given for investment in

high-grade corporate bonds with no risk. That's a clear indictment of

the record of that government which should not be forgotten.

I'd

like to cite a case which is most typical of the results of that

policy, because mining in this province is comprised of a multitude of

small operations. If there's one thing we must respond to, it's the

needs of the small businessman in British Columbia. The example I have

is the record of a small business company called Amex Exploration

Services Ltd. of Kamloops. In 1972 Amex Exploration Services Ltd. had a

staff of 46 in the city of Kamloops. At election time in 1975 this

company had a staff of four involved in exploration services.

Just

listen to the trend in terms of of their employment and the exploration

contracts which they had. In 1972 Amex Exploration had 216 exploration

contracts; in 1973 they had 55 exploration contracts; in 1974 they had

40 exploration contracts; and in 1975 they had only 15 exploration

contracts. So here is a small company in British Columbia which in a

four-year period dropped down to almost no exploration contracts from a

significant number of 216; who dropped down from a staff of 46 in the

city of Kamloops to a staff of four people. The individuals owning that

firm had to remortgage their own homes and fell $37,000 in debt. Today,

working year-round, this company is operating with a full staff of 40

people. One of their company principals has now stated: "Things have

never looked better; all of the old debts have been paid."

All

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this subject is that we

should not forget in this House perhaps the blackest mark against the

record of the former government of this province and the impact it had

on small business and on the individuals in those businesses. Their

legislation, which was designed to leave resources in the ground,

literally blew apart dozens of small operations in this province and

caused the mining industry to drop to nothing.

You only have

to remember the statements made by their leader when as Premier on

January 20, 1973, he stated as follows: "We are not going to say, 'No

more mining, no more extraction,' but unless we can get a better deal

for what we're doing we will leave the ore in the ground, and I mean

it." That's the former leader — now leader of the NDP — who stated that

resources should be left in the ground and who imposed the royalties of

those days.

Mr. Chairman, it's not going to happen again.

That's what the members of this side of the House say, and the people

of this province should not forget it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of quick comments on the points made

by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). First of all, I just want to

clear up the matter of the directive given to the B.C. Utilities

Commission for Hydro. One of the reasons for the triple-A rating was

that Hydro was attempting to achieve that equity ratio, and that

interest-coverage ratio became necessary because

[ Page

5539 ]

Hydro wasn't regulated; it was okay for that to be

just a policy of the board, but once regulation came in, something

different had to be done.

Mr. Chairman, those people on the

other side should get together. Yesterday the member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) was criticizing a private company, Quinsam Coal, for not taking

its responsibility to heart and going around to the public and

explaining its position. Today the member for Skeena criticizes a

private company for going around the country developing its position.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister should stop distorting

what people say in this chamber. Stop twisting the facts and the truth,

Mr. Minister. He should not be permitted to get away with that kind of

distortion of fact, Mr. Chairman. I did not say what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that is not a point of order. While in committee, all

members can speak as many times as they wish to an issue. If any member

feels that a point he has made in previous debate must be clarified, he

has equal opportunity in committee to stand up, make that point, and

qualify any statements that have been wrongly attributed to him. I'm

sure all members know of the committee process.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Member, don't say those things if you don't want me to comment about them.

MR. HOWARD: Stop twisting the truth; you know what I said. You're the villains in this case, not Alcan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was being criticized for allowing, through

the Utilities Commission Act, that final decision-making be in

cabinet's hands. Today the member for Skeena tells me that we should

now take that decision-making somewhere else. He says the government

shouldn't let the Utilities Commission have any say in this but should

rather make its decisions first, before we really know what the

positions are.

Mr. Chairman, it's true that meetings were held over this period of time

between the government and representatives from the Aluminum Company of Canada

to talk about their project and the long-standing agreement that was passed

by legislation in this House, allowing them, under the terms of that agreement,

to do certain things. But it isn't true that those meetings were held to

devise ways in which Alcan could complete its project; rather those meetings

were held to see how in the fullness of time — given the cooperation among all

of the players — the public interest could be served. The member for Skeena

says that Alcan is making decisions that should be made by government. Well,

Mr. Chairman, Alcan isn't making any decisions; Alcan is attempting to

find ways in which they can make a project more acceptable to the public, in

order that they may make application to the government, if they decide that

the project should go ahead at all. When Alcan made its original statement about

going into a different kind of public process, it said quite clearly that it

was rethinking its position, and maybe it would have to take an entirely different

position with regard to the Kemano completion. It's the company's business

to rethink its position and come back to the government after that position

has been established. So far as I know, at the present time that position has

not been established by the Aluminum Company of Canada.

The

member said that the government should be involved in the process from

the beginning. Well, at the present time there is no process. Alcan, as

a private company, is attempting to develop a position in which it will

come to government. I think it would certainly be precipitous, on

behalf of government, to attempt to legislate things into a process

which hasn't really begun yet, one which we don't know whether we'll

ever get off the ground if the conditions are impossible. I can tell

that member one thing for sure — perhaps a couple of things. Alcan has

been told this and agrees; that's the reason they have begun to rethink

their position. Regardless of the fact that we have an agreement —

legislated in this House many years ago — the Aluminum Company of

Canada has been told that conditions are different today than in the

1950s, and that public perceptions are different. I might say, Mr.

Chairman, that in the broad public perception, I guess nobody

understands the difference between Kemano II and Kemano completion. I

think it's important to say that Alcan, the government — almost

everybody involved — has no intention of ever proceeding with what is

known as Kemano II. I think that should be put on the record, even

though it's not understood very clearly by many people outside the

areas concerned. I think the people in the riding of the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) very clearly understand those distinctions; they

know exactly which rivers are which, which dams are which and which

reservoirs are which, because they've taken a keen interest in the

whole subject, as they should.

I can guarantee to this House

that there will be no Kemano completion without an application from the

Aluminum Company of Canada to the British Columbia Utilities

Commission. At the time that application comes forward, there will be

full public hearings in which everyone who has an interest in this

matter will have the opportunity to fully debate the need for fisheries

protection, environmental protection, levels-of-water protection, and

all the concerns being voiced among the public today. The Aluminum

Company of Canada knows that; the Aluminum Company of Canada has

accepted it. It's a fact that it will not happen without the full

public hearings, and that requirement of the Utilities Commission to

make recommendations to the government. Then the political decision

would be made by the government, as the member for Skeena seems to want

to have done in advance. But at the present time this government has no

request from Alcan for a project. I don't know whether we ever will

have one, but if we do I can guarantee that it will be subject to full

and complete public hearings held in the communities involved, and

offering full participation by the communities involved.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, that was the same minister who guaranteed to this House that his heroin treatment program would work as well.

The

minister said, and I'll paraphrase his remarks, that Alcan has been

advised that conditions are different now and therefore we have other

things to do. Can he tell us when Alcan was told that? Would he also be

prepared to table all of the documentation about those meetings with

Alcan so the general public can see what in fact was happening at the

public service level and at the ministerial level? Because the things

which were happening there are not in accordance with what the minister

has just said. There was the desirability to expedite and assist Alcan

in that project. The minister knows

[ Page 5540 ]

that

to be true, and the information he's giving to the House is not in

accordance with what he knows. I ask him: would he mind tabling all of

the relevant correspondence and documents so the general public can see

what took place?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, at the risk of almost being unparliamentary, I would like

to say to the Member for Skeena that that's absolute baloney; there

were never meetings between me and Alcan, or between senior officials

of my ministry and Alcan, to "expedite" their project. Meetings were

held with Alcan. There are no documents. You sit down with people and

talk with them. We don't sit down with a scripted scenario when we sit

down with people who are interested in the development of this

province, or with whom we have some difficulties in accepting their

proposals. If I could table some documents, I would. But I don't have

any to table.

I advise the member to go back to public

statements that I've made over the past year and a half or more since

I've been Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and he'll

find that those statements were consistent. From the beginning we

advised the Aluminum Company of Canada that there would be no Alcan

project without public hearings, and I say that again: there will be no

project without full public hearings held in the communities and fully

participated in by those communities and anyone else who holds an

interest in this project.

MR. HOWARD: The minister

said there are no documents with respect to those meetings. I have

some. Maybe they're falsified. It's not up to me to table them. You're

the minister, your department held the meetings, and people in your

department and the cabinet sent memos back and forth about those

particular meetings. Don't tell me there are no documents; there are.

You know there are, and what you're telling the committee is not in

accordance with the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it helps if we address the Chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I don't have any documents of meetings that I've held with Alcan, and

I'm not aware of any that my deputy minister has. If you have some I'd

love to see them, and I'd ask you either to table them or to send me

copies. I'll be very careful with them. I don't know to which documents

that member refers, and I don't think he does either.

MR. HOWARD: The documents I have are the unshredded ones.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, where are they? I'd love to have them, unshredded or shredded. Send them over to me. You don't have them.

MR. HOWARD: You've seen them. You know what they are.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Send them over to me. Put them in a brown paper envelope.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I note the minister was talking earlier about his

consistency. Probably the only consistency I've ever noted from that

minister is his total aversion to the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Let him go. He doesn't know any better.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is an unparliamentary remark. I would ask the member if he would withdraw.

MR. COCKE: Oh, is that unparliamentary? I think the behaviour is unparliamentary, but I will certainly withdraw.

While

I listen to this exchange I note with a good deal of humour that not

much is being said by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is

equally concerned and has been quite outspoken about his concern. As a

matter of fact, when he gets back up to Omineca he takes his government

on. He's very careful not to down here, but up there he suggests very

strongly that he takes them on.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, he has spoken in this debate, has he? If he has, I haven't noted that he's been doing very much about Kemano II.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you're trying to give me a message.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be, hon. member, that we...

MR. COCKE: Are we on some vote or other?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...are dealing with vote 65.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether or not you and I have the same kind of

hearing. I'm hearing me talk about that vote, the minister, the

problems around Kemano II and about a difference of opinion that two

members have had. Now I'll get on with some other aspects.

First,

I'd like to talk about that little former Minister of Finance, who is

now a Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who got up and did his

mission today. Since we have had the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources up, I have noted that there has been a cabinet

minister a day getting up and doing his penance, all to be sent to

Kamloops. He was giving us a very sad story about a little corporation

in Kamloops — a private firm — called Amax.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I gather it wasn't Amax, Mr. Member. It's a supplier for frontier

mining exploration, I presume. He indicated very clearly that during

those dark days — which, incidentally, reflect an actual increase in

mining production in the province, but that's neither here nor there....

There

were bad times. As we got into 1975 with the prices down, we couldn't

expect that anything would flourish. The biggest problem that we had in

the province was a chap by the name of Turner, who still doesn't really

know where he's

[ Page

5541 ]

going to land. Some predicted that he might land as

leader of the Conservative Party back east. That gives the Liberals

many shivers. He was then Finance minister, and he refused to accept

the royalty as being an accountable expense for tax purposes. We noted

that there was a migration of exploration. The first noting of that

migration took place in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and it even

took place in good old staid Ontario. It makes me a little bit sick to

listen to all this talk about those terrible times. For a very short

time this province had a progressive government. Out of the last 29

years, for three years and four months the province has been blessed

with a government that at least took account of human needs. However,

this poor government that we have now are under fire. To cover their

incompetence, they continually try to go back to those three years and

four months. It has to be the most insipid effort I've ever seen,

because they've been government for five years. For example, the

minister was talking about the pipeline to Vancouver Island. We had

three years and four months. They've been back in government for five

years and just now he's talking about the pipeline.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right, and they were in government for years and years — 17 years prior to that.

would think it's very difficult to get rational people to grab and hold

on to those arguments. I suggest that there's a pattern here. It's a

pattern that I'm not particularly fond of. I'd like to discuss that

pattern for just a second. What does the pattern involve? First and

foremost it involves films. We had the minister and his energy policy

filmed. Well, that's marvellous. Lots and lots of taxpayers' money goes

into that. It creates a little employment. But you know, Mr. Chairman,

they wasted the taxpayers' money. They ran the film up against a very

popular final hockey game and two or three other very popular TV

series. I would think that there were not too many people who caught a

glimpse of that film unless their TV dial stuck by accident.

What

did he do then to waste more money? He hired a major polling service to

go around the province and ask the folks how they liked the film —

another monumental waste of money, and all in the name of

image-building. It makes one a little bit fed up to see this kind of

waste. But it's not really something that we didn't somewhat

anticipate. What led us to anticipate this kind of waste from this

minister? Well, his record led us to anticipate this kind of waste.

Where does he get his record? It was not as a member of the opposition,

when he was a member for that short period of time, wasting the

taxpayers' money, raising arguments about children being kept by the

welfare department in the Empress Hotel, and other false accusations.

No, it was when he was Minister of Health. He showed then that he

didn't have the ability to conserve money. He wasted money, and as the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, the heroin treatment program is

the best example.

This relates to this vote, because the Premier should have been thinking about

that when he appointed this minister to that new portfolio. Now there's

no question he had to get him out of Health. He had to get him out of there

because he was an embarrassment to the entire province, to the community and

to the government. He's an embarrassment to this government, and their standards

are right down at the bottom. So to be an embarrassment to this government,

one has to be right down there, as the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development knows. And I'll bet you behind those closed doors he tells him

that too. I'll bet you he says: "Look, you're an embarrassment."

Further,

to carry on his most embarrassing behaviour, he goes out and hires Bert

Price's daughter — Bert Price, who used to sit in this House; that

little hoe-maker from Vancouver; that very set, firm Socred; nice

little guy — nothing against him, George — nice little chap. This

ministry hired Marie Taylor, who had absolutely no background

whatsoever in mining, energy, mineral resources or anything else, to

head up the Utilities Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's nepotism.

MR. COCKE: That's right, nepotism at arm's length.

AN HON. MEMBER: What the hell does that mean, nepotism at arm's length?

MR. COCKE: If that doesn't get you, nothing will.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Where's Allen Garr? That's a quotable quote.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a good one, arm's length nepotism.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I think when these other cabinet ministers sort of joke

around about it we must remember that they were party to this. There's

nothing wrong with hiring the child of a Socred, providing the child of

a Socred had some kind of background that would indicate there was a

reason to hire her.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against women. I'm going to tell Yvonne.

MR. COCKE: First and foremost, depending....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against women in the marketplace.

MR. COCKE:

I can hardly hold a straight face on the remarks of that minister. He's

got me all broken up, shaken up. I just don't know what to say until I

regain my composure.

Mr. Chairman, my criticism is that the

minister is irresponsible. Yet he did it before in his old portfolio.

He appointed the same person to head up the VGH board when he took it

under his administration. She's phenomenal. Not only can she look after

hospitals, she can look after the Utilities Commission. Where will we

find her next? If he is moved to some other ministry, we can expect to

find Marie Taylor popping up there too, regardless. I guess he has a

shortage of friends. Anyway, that's the price we pay. All the films and

polls are shades of a minister who really doesn't pay attention to what

he's doing, looks after his friends, and then has some irrelevant

minister stand up in the course of the debate to make an irrelevant

statement that they hope will carry as far as Kamloops.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're making it hard for women.

[ Page 5542 ]

MR. COCKE:

I suggest that the next person to make some contribution to this debate

should be the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips), who's telling us off the cuff that he's sort of

supporting this minister. I would like to see him make it official. I'd

like him to get up and say: "Hey, we agree on Marie Taylor, the waste

of money on those films, the waste of money on the poll and the waste

of money on the heroin treatment program." Down the pit went $16

million! If that minister will get up and tell me that he agrees with

this kind of behaviour which has been consistently bad all the way down

the line.... I find the way the minister handled this whole question

between him the member for Skeena very difficult to accept. Let the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development get up and tell us

all about it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just before he

does that, I.... My deputy had to go out to make a telephone call, but

I just gave him congratulations. Under his management the ministry must

have developed some fantastic policies, because the member for New

Westminster can't find any to criticize and instead turns to his usual

course of.... I don't mind him assassinating my character, because I'm

in this House and I can take it; if I couldn't I'd leave. But he has

the rather pathetic habit of attacking people who have no way of

responding to him, and that's generally people outside this House. I

think if anybody is embarrassed around here, I hope it's his colleagues

on the other side of the House, because that's the kind of activity

which used not to happen around here but is happening more and more. I

think it's to be....

I'd just like to say that I remember

being in opposition in this Legislature when we had a lot of good

debates about women in government. I can't remember — if I'm wrong, I'm

sure someone will point it out — in three and half years of government

by the NDP ever having a woman appointed to one very senior position.

This government appointed, I believe, the first female assistant deputy

minister in Canada — in the Ministry of Health, as it turned out. That

was one of the first significant breakthroughs in getting women

appointed to high government positions within the civil service. I make

no apologies for appointing Mrs. Marie Taylor to act as chairman of the

British Columbia Utilities Commission, nor would I make any apologies

for appointing her as chairman of the Vancouver General Hospital board

— a job which she has carried out in the highest fashion. I would

invite the members opposite to find fault with the job which she has

performed as chairman of the hospital board. And I would invite the

members opposite to find fault with the job she has performed since as

chairman of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Mrs.

Taylor is one of British Columbia's most prominent businesswomen. She

spent 25 years in the business world, reaching a position of high

management capability. She is recognized, not only here in British

Columbia but also across Canada, as one of the senior businesswomen in

this country. She served with distinction as the first president of one

of Canada's most prestigious industrial relations organizations. In her

short time as chairman of the British Columbia Utilities Commission she

has again served with distinction. In the financial circles of New

York, in the oil capital of Calgary and among the industries in British

Columbia she has received a very deserved reputation as a fine

chairwoman and a fine addition to the Utilities Commission process in

this country. I would defy the members opposite to canvass the

industries which have had direct dealings with the British Columbia

Utilities Commission and find one senior person who deals with that

commission who doesn't regard Mrs. Taylor's appointment in the highest

possible terms. I think it's abhorrent that a member would, for strict

political gain, attack a person in this community who has probably

contributed more — and continues to do so — than many of us to the

community development of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE:

I would anticipate that kind of reply from that kind of minister. I was

here, Mr. Chairman, when he was a member of the opposition. He was

described as the assassin of bureaucrats. Not one public servant in

this province was safe when that member was sitting across the House.

was not attacking Marie Taylor. I was attacking that minister for

appointing a person who does not have a qualification. He stands up and

talks about her qualifications, but he hasn't given us one argument in

favour of her qualifications. He says something about people and phone

the BCUC; they're delighted with their reception. What's he talking

about? The Utilities Commission in this province has yet to be called

upon to do one single thing.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Nonsense.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense, he says. Give us one hearing and tell us how much she's being paid.

Let

me deal just for a second with our public servants in high places.

Let's remember Frances Fleming, Kathleen Ruff and Gene Errington. Where

are they today?

MR. HANSON: Fired.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And about time. That's it.

Another thing, those were people directly in the public service. This is a

chairperson of a commission. He says: "What's wrong with women?"

I say: take that argument back to the days when you persecuted Gene Errington

right out of that department. That's right. Kathleen Ruff got out of the

province. They are people who are giving a good account of themselves.

Mr.

Chairman, I suggest very strongly that my criticisms are valid;

otherwise the minister would have come up with an argument that might

have made sense.

MR. KEMPF: I hear the members

opposite suggesting that I get up and speak. I'm only too happy to do

so. I hear the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) this morning talking about Kemano Completion

and Kemano II. I'm not sure the member for Skeena is aware of the

difference, because he has some of his facts wrong. Outside of that,

I've got to agree somewhat with him — just to say that, yes, there is

an awful lot of concern in the whole interior of this province,

particularly in my constituency of Omineca, in regard to any project,

whether it be Kemano II or Kemano completion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There

were some members opposite who said that I haven't spoken in public or

in this House with regard to the plans of the Aluminum Company of

Canada, which, of

[ Page 5543 ]

course,

is untrue. I'd just like to reiterate what I said recently in debate on

the budget about the Kemano completion project and its effect on the

people of my constituency. I quote what I said on March 17 of this year

— from Hansard . I've said it many times, members opposite, in

my constituency and I will never back off from this stand. I said that

I and the people of Omineca "stand united against any project which

would result in the devastation of our river systems" — any project

which will mean a change in the water patterns of the Nechako River in

my constituency. I stand by those words. I've told this House that.

I've told my constituents that and I've told the government that. I

will continue to do so.

I stand in this debate this morning

on behalf of a great number of my constituents who either directly or

indirectly rely on the mining industry for their livelihood. Mining is

a very important industry in Omineca, where four major mines now exist.

Three communities that rely heavily, some almost entirely, on the

mining industry for their very existence are Granisle, Fraser Lake and

now Houston. These are vibrant, thriving and expanding communities

because of a very stable and economically viable mining industry.

Fifteen hundred employees and their families are directly reliant on

that industry for their jobs and their future. They are families who

can look forward to a bright, stable future due to the mining climate

produced in this province by this present administration. You laugh,

Mr. Member, but we remember. It hasn't always been that way in British

Columbia. We in Omineca can remember what happened under an NDP

government, and we remember what that government did to the mining

industry in Omineca. Not only did they hurt the mining industry; they

jeopardized that very industry and hurt an untold number of people —

not only people employed in the industry itself, but many other small

business people. When the mining industry is in danger — and in danger

it was from 1972 to 1975 — you jeopardize the livelihood of more than

just the people working directly in the mines.

Let's look at

some of the headlines. The members opposite love to get up and base

their whole debate on headlines in the newspapers. Let's look at some

of those headlines. I have several here. One of April 21, 1973, in the

Vancouver Province reads: "B.C. Mining Being Slowly Strangled."

It says: "British Columbia's second largest industry, mining, is in

danger of being slowly strangled to death because of legislation passed

at the recent session of the House." Another headline from the Colonist of October 6, 1973 says: "Mine Growth Slow." It reads:

"The

Mining Association of British Columbia reported Friday that the mining

industry in B.C. showed a marked decline in expansion in 1972 when

compared to 1971 when it had reached a peak. The association's 1972

economic report on the B.C. and Yukon mining industries said: 'New

capital inflow in B.C. necessary to expand or develop mines declined to

$260.8 million.' That figure is only 56 percent of the 1971 total."

A headline in the Vancouver Sun

for December 10, 1973 said "Mine Exploration Decreases in British

Columbia," and one on November 18, 1974, said: "Mining Industry Being

Destroyed by Government."

When the mining industry is in

danger, exploration money dries up, and dry up it did. Did it ever dry

up, and everyone was hurt. Grocery stores, hardware stores, motels,

hotels, gas stations, car and truck rentals, helicopter companies —

everything was hurt. I know, because I was in business during those

years in Omineca, and that's one of the reasons I stand here today to

tell this story to this chamber. That is why I gave up everything to

attempt to ensure that never again in this great province would we see

that which was done to the mining industry in 1,200 days of socialism.

remember the leave-it-in-the-ground philosophy of the NDP in those

days. I remember Bob Williams and his "bring them to their knees and

take them over" attitude. I remember that, and the Hart Horns, and the

Nimsickness that we had in this province that ran like wildfire

throughout the province when the socialists were taking the industry

out of existence — taking it and taxing it out of existence. I won't

forget, and neither will the miners and their families. Ask the miners

who moved from Bralorne to Houston, expecting some kind of future in a

brand-new mine at Bradina. Many people moved all the way from

Bralorne....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members; the member for Omineca has taken his place in debate and is addressing the committee.

MR. KEMPF: Keep those members opposite in order, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and other members would not interrupt.

MR. KEMPF: ...so they can hear the very quiet member for Omineca.

Ask

those people from Bralorne who moved to Houston to take their place in

a brand new mine at Bradina, only to see it close within two years of

its opening. Ask those people what they think of the socialist way in

the mining industry. Ask the small business people who rely heavily on

mining exploration to make their businesses viable. Ask the small

airline companies such as Harrison Airways, who, had it not been for

the 1,200 days of the socialist government in British Columbia, would

still be in business and providing a daily service into Burns Lake,

Vanderhoof, even Dease Lake — the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell)

isn't here right now — and even on to Whitehorse. That was their plan.

They were doing very well, relying very heavily on the mining

exploration that was taking place in northern British Columbia for that

viability, until by 1974 and 1975 it had all but disappeared.

The

people of Omineca won't forget. The miners in Omineca won't forget, nor

will their families. Mining is a very important industry, not only to

the miners and their families, but to all of the community. It provides

a base and foundation on which all of the services to those communities

can be built. I personally have a very high regard for the mining

industry, because not only have I personally worked in the industry

from time to time but my father was a hard-rock miner in this province

and country for 35 years. It's an industry that's very close to my

heart. If I have any say in it, we will never again in this province

see the socialists in a position to do again what they did to that

industry in the 1,200 days of their rule in British Columbia. We will

never again see Bill 31 and the Yukon development acts — never. The

mines were shutting down. Let alone new mines opening, they were

shutting down from 1972-1975 in a mining

[ Page 5544 ]

province with more mining potential than all of the rest of this great land put together. Never again.

have seen what fair and logical mining legislation can do for the

industry. The record speaks for itself. I could go on and give the

figures, but they're in the record and in history; they're known. The

record speaks for itself since 1975. The mines were opening, jobs were

being created and exploration was taking place once again. It is just

now — five years later — that the mining exploration has returned in

Omineca and in the central and northern part of this province to where

it was in 1972. It took five years to resurrect that industry that your

socialist government killed from 1972 to 1975. Confidence has been

restored. The industry is paying its way. The people of British

Columbia are seeing a return for their resource. You don't have to tax

the industry out of existence. Or was that part of the plan? Was it the

socialist plan to bring that industry to its knees and then nationalize

it like they would everything else? Was that the plan? I ask the

members opposite to get up and respond to that. Was that the scheme?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

You were in Quebec, Mr. Member for Skeena, on the dole of the province

of British Columbia and living in Quebec at that time. How would you

know?

Was that the plan, Mr. Chairman? Was it the plan to nationalize the mining

industry of this province, or was it their plan to give it all to Ottawa with

the understanding that the Trudeau socialists would do the job for them? Was

that what the NDP had in mind when they were bringing the mining industry in

the province of British Columbia to its knees in those 1,200 days of socialism?

Well, Mr. Chairman, thank God we'll never know, for the people of this province,

remembering those 1,200 dark days of socialism, will never again return a socialist

government, knowing what they had in mind and were doing to the mining industry

from 1972 to 1975.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada