1982 Legislative Session: 4th 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 )

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7955 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On the amendment to vote 28: minister's office (continued) ––

Mr. Howard

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Skelly

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave not granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a procedural question with you. Some days

ago — I believe it was on May 27 — the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly)

rose on a question of privilege relating to a document which the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had referred to

earlier. Just immediately before the member for Alberni raised the

question of privilege, the minister tabled this document in the House.

The question of privilege was raised with respect to the tabling of

that particular document by the minister.

The question of

privilege alleged that the minister had misled the House earlier by

presenting references to that particular document which he tabled. The

allegation in the question of privilege was that the minister had

basically presented a falsified document to the House, and the question

of privilege had been raised. Mr. Speaker has not....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. HOWARD:

I'm on my feet on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I don't see how

the minister can raise a point of order while I have one already

underway.

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

I'll ask both members standing to take their seats for just one moment.

Hon. members, at the opening of proceedings the Chair did not recognize

the member for Skeena on a point of order, but on debate on the

amendment to vote 28. He was proceeding with a statement, and a point

of order has been raised. The Chair is duty bound, hon. members, to

hear the point of order at this time. Hon. members, the Chair must

always hear a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: That's what you were hearing.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, I will again repeat for the benefit of the member for

Skeena that the member for Skeena was not recognized on a point of

order, but in debate at this time....

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I stood in my place, and the

Chair said: "The member for Skeena." I said: "I want to deal,

Mr. Chairman, with a procedural matter." I was on my feet on that procedural

matter, which is a point of order, and you can't have two points of order

at the same time. That's my submission.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, when a member rises on a point of order the common

practice is to inform the House, through the Chair, that the member is

rising on a point of order. The member did state that there was a

procedural question he wanted the Chair to hear. Nevertheless, hon.

members, it would be very difficult for the Chair to automatically

assume that that would be a point of order. During the course of that

statement, a member did state that he wished to rise on a point of

order. If we are to have consistency in the chamber, and if the Chair

is to maintain its position as enforcing the rules which we all have to

abide by, then the Chair at this point must hear the first point of

order, on completion of which the remainder of the statement by the

member may continue on a point of order. It is very difficult, hon.

member, for the Chair to do otherwise and....

MR. HOWARD: Could you advise me, Mr. Chairman...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena continues on a new point of order.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, could you advise me how it is possible to raise a

procedural question without it being a point of order? That's exactly

what a procedural matter is: a point of order. And that's what I was

doing. If the refinement, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would remind all members that only one member of the House can be

recognized at a time, particularly when we have a point of order. The

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) continues on the point he was making,

which was?

MR. HOWARD: Which was a point of order, in

its refined way called a matter relating to procedure. It was a

procedural matter. That's what I'm talking about: a procedural matter —

or the point of order, if you prefer, Mr. Chairman. I'll go along with

that. If it's more precise to say it's a point of order and that's the

acceptable form to the Chair, then that's what it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: No problem.

MR. HOWARD: No problem whatever.

The point I was making is that some days ago now....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the House.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, in the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not in committee.

MR. HOWARD: Not in committee; exactly. I must congratulate the Attorney-General for recognizing that fine point.

[ Page 7956 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask the member for Skeena to bring to the committee the point he's making?

MR. HOWARD:

In the House some days ago, the member for Alberni raised a question of

privilege, alleging in the question of privilege that the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had misled the House, had

deliberately and consciously misled the House, by presenting a

falsified document to it. That is the allegation contained in and

implicit within the question of privilege raised by the member for

Alberni.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker has been unable to find the time to come back to the House with that particular question.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will remind all hon. members of the standing rule that has been

established in this committee: when the chairman rises, any member —

any member — who speaks from that point on is immediately asked to

remove himself from this chamber. I would ask all hon. members to

remind themselves of that point before the Chair has to make that

particular move.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

Before we continue on this debate, I would ask all hon. members to allow the Chair a brief moment for consultation.

Prior

to recognizing the hon. member for Skeena, I would advise all hon.

members that matters of procedure or other matters that are before the

House or in the hands of Mr. Speaker cannot be discussed in committee.

The appropriate place for discussions or submissions regarding that

particular aspect of legislative proceedings is the House itself, and

not committee. I hope that to some degree clarifies the point.

MR. HOWARD:

I think there may have been some misunderstanding, with respect, Mr.

Chairman. I was not leading up to discussing something that either took

place in the House or was pending in the House. I was only using that

as the foundation of my argument to get to the point that there is a

cloud of suspicion over the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Until that matter is cleared up by an absolute apology on

the part of the minister before a committee that is established, which

is the motion the member for Alberni would move, I think it is most

improper to have that minister in this committee, seeking authority to

spend more public money. That, I submit, is wrong.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

At this point the Chair must rule that that is not a valid point of

order. It may be part of a member's discussion in a particular estimate

or it may be part of a discussion elsewhere, but not by the greatest

stretch of the imagination could it be called a valid point of order. I

am sure that upon reflection the member will realize that is the case.

MR. HOWARD:

If you are ruling that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources can continue to sit in this committee, with that cloud of

suspicion hanging over his head and his record of squandering public

money, then I challenge that ruling, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Speaker, during committee the ruling of the Chair was challenged on

a matter regarding the ability of the estimates of the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to

currently proceed.

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

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

NAYS — 18

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We have already called for the committee, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

I was on my feet to make a point of order, and Your Honour didn't look

in this direction. My voice was drowned out by those hyenas opposite.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the presence of the Speaker in the House is simply to

determine whether or not the ruling of the Chair will be sustained. The

committee is still constituted, and if a point of order is to be

raised, we will have to wait until Mr. Chairman reaches the chair. As

soon as we have a person in the chair, I'm sure that the member will be

recognized.

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

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, last week I had occasion to speak to

you as Chairman and to the party Whip about some comments being passed

across the

[ Page 7957 ]

floor

of the House. In the privacy of our conversation I had assumed that

both the Whip and the Chairman would bring to the attention of certain

members that perhaps some moderation of personal comments would be

useful.

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I took the opportunity to speak privately both to the

Whip and you, and I would hope that the admonition and suggestion I

made about those kinds of comments will be followed through on.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I find the point of order raised by the Leader of the

Opposition an interesting and significant one. The Leader of the

Opposition and I, for as long as I've been in this House, have

experienced a number of incidents over the years when the appropriate

conduct of the Committee of the Whole House and the House itself has

been seriously affected by conduct of members on both sides. When I was

in opposition and he was in government, and when we were both in

opposition, we had numerous occasions when a succession of Speakers,

Chairmen and Clerks had to wrestle with the consequences of a

regrettable lack of respect for the traditions of this chamber, and a

more serious lack of respect for the nature of the business which we

are expected by the citizens of this province to conduct in this

chamber. If there is anything which brings our process into disrepute,

it is the inability of members to conduct themselves in debate in a way

that will ensure that the debate is productive and in the full

discharge of our responsibilities.

If the Leader of the

Opposition has had private discussions with you, Mr. Chairman, and with

the government Whip, I find it regrettable that such discussions were

not with a broader group. I trust that such discussions included the

Whip of the official opposition, because if there is fault in these

matters, the fault doesn't rest on only one side of this House.

know the Leader of the Opposition was serious when he raised that point

of order. I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the Leader of the

Opposition that I am equally serious in what I say today. It therefore

would be my suggestion to the Leader of the Opposition, with his

seniority and experience in these matters, that he take it upon himself

to deal with the members of his caucus. Perhaps those on this side of

the House who have seniority as great as that of the Leader of the

Opposition will do likewise with respect to the government caucus.

MR. BARRETT:

On the same point of order, I welcome the comments of the

Attorney-General. I want to point out to him that before I spoke on

this particular matter to the Chairman and the government Whip, I spoke

to our caucus and our Whip. Mr. Chairman is aware of the nature of the

comments that, in particular, went far beyond the kind of caution all

of us expect in the House. I echo the words of the Attorney-General. I

thank him for indicating that he, with his seniority, intends to pursue

the matter with his caucus. But I want to tell the House that before

mentioning this to the Chairman and the Whip I took this matter not

only to our Whip but to our caucus.

It reaches the point

where an exchange of comments about private lives sometimes, in the

heat and emotion of debate, opens a venue of crossfire that is beyond

even the wildest history of this House. I think the Attorney-General's

comments would be well heeded by everyone. Otherwise, more than private

conversations would be a method of dealing with it. I would regret that

for every member of the House. I completely agree with the

Attorney-General's comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the point has been rather thoroughly canvassed; but on that point, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

There are moments during the heat of a debate when words do slip out

that should not slip out, and that happens to me. A moment ago, in the

heat of a matter that I felt very strongly about. the word of

accusation to the group in government opposite that escaped my lips and

should not have was "hyenas." I apologize for that word and that

accusation. It is something that should not have been said, and I can't

do anything other than apologize when that does occur.

But

when words are uttered by a person sitting in his seat, a cross-fire

accusation that strikes at a most delicate and sensitive matter, that

should not be tolerated. Examination of this subject matter has taken

place before. I, for one, hope that it does not occur again, because if

it does occur again there may not be any possibility of containing what

happens, either in this chamber or outside of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you. Hon. members, it would possibly be an appropriate time for

all of us to bear in mind that our standing orders — our books of

reference over literally hundreds of years — are structured in such a

way to prevent incidents such as has happened from occurring. I would

commend to all members a closer abidance to the rules which guide us

all in this chamber.

At the present time we are on the amendment to vote 28.

MR. HOWARD:

At an earlier meeting of the committee yesterday, there was a fair

amount of discussion about the excessive increase in expenditures

sought by the government to cover the office of the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. All that went by without the minister

bothering to attempt to justify his request to the committee for a 20

percent increase in allocation of funds for one purpose and a 14 or 15

percent increase for another purpose. It involves the subject matters

of travel, office expenses and office furnishings.

Because

the matter is a very serious one — restraint and curtailment on the

desirability of the minister to be the most prolific squanderer in the

history of ministers of that department — it would seem appropriate

that the minister should have risen in his place in the committee once

the motion had been moved to reduce those amounts to last year's

expenditures and give us some justification as to why he wants this

extra money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. HOWARD: The minister doesn't intend to give the committee any justification as to why he wants these extra funds?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Some of the matters that the member raises in regard to this amendment have been

[ Page 7958 ]

raised

in question period, which I assume the Chairman has no knowledge of. If

he doesn't rule me out of order, I would like to apprise him that those

questions about some other estimates — not the estimates which are

under review in this committee — were raised in question period and

were taken as notice. I fully intend to answer the questions raised by

that member and others in question period.

The matter of the

estimates which are before the committee now, and the amendment which I

am obviously not going to support, is increased travel expenses for the

current fiscal year. They are necessitated for a number of reasons

including inflation and increased costs of travel. Increased costs last

year related to a number of unforeseen circumstances such as the

negotiations with the federal government on energy matters, leading to

the energy agreement which was signed last fall; several trips to

Alberta to talk with energy officials there, leading up to our

agreement which was subsequent to the Alberta agreement; and a number

of trips around the province. Once the House is no longer in session, I

intend to continue to visit as many parts of the province as I possibly

can.

Yesterday there was some talk about Fort St. John, and

questions during debate on this amendment about what the member for

Fort St. John has been doing about employment. He is just one member of

this House. I don't want to single anyone out, but his name was brought

forward yesterday to the committee. As a result of the work that member

did for his community, I paid not one visit to Fort St. John last year

but probably six, and I've been doing that ever since. In fact, I've

been in Fort St. John four times this year, I think, talking to the

community, to the people in the contracting business and the oil and

gas business about ways we can help them recover from what is a very

disastrous economic situation.

In fact, one result of the

meetings I've had with the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet)

and others in the community is that a couple of weeks ago — I've

forgotten the exact date — we announced the development of a special

$1.5 million program under the direction of the employment committee of

cabinet to begin immediately extending natural gas service to customers

in both the North Peace and the South Peace. That program, which will

start this summer, is a direct result of the visits I've made into that

community. Last year I think I visited almost every community in

British Columbia with some resource interests. For instance, I visited

over 20 mines around British Columbia. I talked to people in every

community, from the Yukon border to the United States border, and from

east to west as well.

Costs are going up. This is a

reasonably modest increase, I believe, and comes to about $7,000. I can

justify that increase to the committee. Under the rules of this

committee I can't discuss questions raised in question period, but I

can give particularly the members of the committee the assurance that I

intend to answer those questions, and will do so during question period.

want to answer one other question. Yesterday somebody, I think the

Leader of the Opposition, raised the matter of the kind of furniture in

my office, Somebody called it lavish and plush. Except for, I believe,

one piece of furniture that belongs to me — an antique radio — every

item in my office was bought not by me but by the former inhabitant of

that office, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

MR. LEA:

In some respects the minister is absolutely right: it's the job of the

minister to travel throughout the province. Obviously inflation has

meant increased costs this year. The minister said he visited 20 mines

and travelled to almost every community that has any relationship at

all to resource development; and that's commendable; but the minister

should tell us what he accomplished. If we look at his record, we see

that probably most of the 20 mines he visited have closed. We see that

the resource communities he visited are in real trouble.

We're

not going to be stupid enough to say that all the troubles visited on

British Columbia by the current recession are the fault of this

government. Mind you, when we were in government during the last

recession, they were stupid enough to accuse us of that. Those of us

with a sense of history, at least for the last 10 years, probably

remember the absolute irresponsibility of the present government when

they were in opposition. It's very difficult to keep your emotions out

of a debate when you remember that irrational, emotional opposition

which now sits as government.

For instance, the minister

feels it's somehow unfair that we should raise the matter of his trip

to New York and the kind of money he spent, but at least it's true.

When the minister was sitting over here in opposition, he knew very

well that we weren't keeping welfare recipients in the Empress, but

that didn't stop him from making the accusation. And he didn't

apologize for it later when it was proven to be untrue.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, it wasn't.

MR. LEA:

He's still over there shaking his head, saying it wasn't. The guy

doesn't stop. It's very difficult to keep the emotional past out of

today's debate.

The minister also said that some of the

money he spent last year was on travel across the country while working

on the energy agreement that was finally signed. Let's take a look at

that energy agreement. Maybe we would have been better off had he

stayed home and not signed the agreement. As far as I can make out, the

provinces and the federal government never discussed whether or not the

price of energy should go up; all they discussed was who was going to

get what share as it went up. How much was this government going to

get? How much was that government going to get? No regard whatsoever

for the consumer of energy. One of the most inflationary factors in our

economy today is the result of that minister's travelling and signing

that energy agreement with the federal government. So we may save money

as consumers and as taxpayers if we could keep that minister at home,

if he's going to sign those kinds of agreements.

travelled throughout the province, and all of the areas he's

responsible for are now in chaos. It's not enough that he travel

throughout the province. As part of the government he has some

responsibility to address the problems that he heard of while

travelling, and we can't see where he's done that. It's nice to travel;

it's political to trave; but surely we can expect some results from

that travel that aren't chaotic in terms of the economy of this

province. One of the most important portfolios in any government today

is probably the portfolio that this minister holds, because the future

of energy is our future, in the direction we're going to go. I haven't

seen anything from this minister.... When was the last time you heard

that minister talk about alternative energy supplies? When was the last

time you heard that minister talk about a new financial formula in

terms of the energy economy of this province? As long as I can

remember, the member for Alberni

[ Page 7959 ]

has been talking in this House about the new conserver economics.

MR. SKELLY: I gave up.

MR. LEA:

He says he gave up. I don't blame him, but it's too good an idea to

give up altogether. I think we as the opposition still have to put

forward to this government some of the new economics and some of the

new thoughts that are coming out surrounding energy.

We know

that in this province we waste approximately 50 percent of the energy

that we produce. Most of the energy that we produce is used by

industry. It's not purposefully wasted. It's wasted because of

machinery that is not up to date, machinery that is not as

conserver-oriented as the kind of machinery that we turn out today. We

also know that to bring new energy on stream is a very expensive

project, and we know that because we've only just finished discussing

the kind of borrowing that we're going to have to do in the future in

order to bring Hydro's new energy projects on stream. New economies are

coming forward every day — good economies — telling us that the most

beneficial, the most economic thing to do is recapture a portion of

that energy that we waste now. That's where we should be going — not

spending our dollars bringing on new hydroelectric projects that are

not only expensive in terms of the dollars that we have to lay out for

their construction, but also in the kind of damage they do to our

rivers, and therefore to our fishing industry and the esthetic quality

of our life in British Columbia. All of those things are expensive not

only in terms of the dollars we have to borrow in order to build them,

but also in the kind of dollar and esthetic value that they take away

from us in the future as a province.

This minister seems to me to be captured by Mr. Bonner and the minds of the 1940s and 1950s, the values of the 1940s and 1950s.

MR. SKELLY: The bond-brokers.

MR. LEA:

That's true. They cannot see that maybe there's a different way to go

when we're dealing with energy, that we don't necessarily have to go

the old way of spending gigantic chunks of capital to bring on new

energy, when we can start taking a look at alternative forms of

producing energy and the conserver economics so prevalent in the minds

of most progressive thinkers today. And that's to recapture some of the

energy we waste.

This minister wants to increase his travel

allowance. To do what? We admit that it's good from a PR point of view

for any minister to let the people know that the government's

interested in their problem. But that surely isn't the end-all. Surely

it just isn't a matter of going to different communities and being

nice, coming back to Victoria and being nice, and writing back to them

saying: "Gee, it was sure good to see you in Creston last week." I

guess it's good for votes at the local level. This ministry, this

minister and this government have not brought an energy policy into

this Legislature that in any way reflects the thinking of the 1980s.

Every piece of information that this minister brings in, from selling

interruptible power to the United States to bringing on new electric

energy project programs to supply new energy, is outdated thinking from

the 1950s and the first part of the 60s. There are new ideas. Surely

this is the forum to discuss those ideas, and surely it is the

responsibility of the minister to bring some of those new ideas here.

To this date he has not. He has given lip service to some experiments

with wind energy-generating projects and thermal energy projects. He

has brought some through, but even those are becoming outdated today in

terms of bringing energy on stream. Even those ideas are ideas of the

past. If I have any criticism of this minister and this government it

is that it isn't a left or right fight. It just isn't an ideology of

the left opposed to an ideology of the right. We are talking about

good, sound economic management surrounding the supply of energy needed

by industry, commerce and residential. We're not getting those kinds of

debates out of this minister. Out in the community those ideas are

being talked about. It is hard to believe that the minister could have

done all the travelling he says he has done — I believe he has done it

— and not gone out in the community and picked up some of those new

ideas. You would almost have to be purposefully deaf not to hear some

of the new thoughts on conserver economics as it is applies to energy.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

minister was also the Minister of Health. If there are two areas where

we have to look for new ideas they are health and energy. When he was

the Minister of Health he never talked about holistic medicine. He

never talked about the need for health. He was the old kind of

minister. He was the minister of sickness, trying to treat sickness

instead of trying to make a healthy society.

When it comes

to energy it is that same kind of outdated thinking that prevails with

the minister. Instead of looking to the future, instead of saying,

"What new ideas can we apply to the future of energy needs in this

province?" he only goes to the past to try to duplicate it. We are

finding out from that experience that it wasn't the best way to deal

with the problem. I am not blaming the people from the past. You can

only deal with the information you have at the time. But not to deal

with the new information that is coming in all throughout the community

but to deal with the past leads me to believe that the trips that this

minister makes are not worthwhile. We are not spending the money well.

If the minister can go out into the province of British Columbia —

where there are new ideas around energy in every community from

forward, progressive thinkers — and come back, after having spent all

that money, with not one new idea, that seems to me to be a waste of

money.

If that minister, during his term of office, either

in Health or Energy — but let's stay with Energy — had gone out in the

community and spent twice as much money as he spent last year and had

come back to this Legislature and said, "Now I'd like to talk with the

member for Port Alberni about some of the ideas he's been talking about

for the past five years," I would say it was money well spent. But

surely it isn't money just for a PR job that we want. Surely the idea

of ministers going out into the community is to go out and actually

talk with — not talk to — the people of this province and bring their

ideas back to this Legislature. That is a special duty of a cabinet

minister, because cabinet ministers represent not only a small

geographic area called a riding but also the entire province in the

portfolio they are in. That is a special responsibility that we don't

see this minister fulfilling.

Surely in 1982 the minister

must have gleaned some of the new technology around energy from

somewhere and some of the new financial formulas that are being put

forward around energy. For that minister to stand in the House and tell

[ Page 7960 ]

about all the travelling he has done and then admit that in all that

travelling he didn't get a new idea is almost sacrilege. It isn't

airy-fairy to talk about the new economics surrounding energy.

The

new economics of not bringing on new energy but to recapturing some of

the energy that we already produce is the kind of economics that not

only makes more sense for the investment dollar, with a quicker and

better return and fewer dollars spent by the taxpayer, but it's also

more job-producing. It doesn't create the regional pocket economy of

putting in a new dam or producing coal. What it does is spread those

jobs throughout the entire community, because when you're dealing with

conserver economics, each community feels economic impact through home

insulation programs and through the kind of activity that's generated

throughout the province by putting in new machinery. Mr. Chairman, I'd

much rather see a tax write-off for a company to put in new machinery

that will save us from using energy than put taxpayers' dollars into

bringing on new hydroelectric programs such as the Peace River Site C.

It just makes more sense. If I have one large complaint about this

government and this minister — especially because this minister is in

the very sensitive role of energy, where new ideas are coming in all

day and every day — it is that he obviously does not listen. If he does

listen, he doesn't seem to understand. And if he does, he doesn't seem

to be able to articulate his ideas back in this Legislature, where they

should be spoken about.

Spending money for frivolous things

is one thing — and that's a far different thing. As the minister said,

he's going to come back in question period.... I think the charges that

the opposition are making now — that he's an incapable minister when it

comes to energy — are far more serious. The minister is truly

representative of his colleagues in the cabinet. They believe that

anything from the past is good and anything dealing with the future is

suspect.

According to some philosophic economists, we are

leaving the industrial era as we've known it. We're moving into the

future. As members, we're like the rest of society: we have no idea

where we're going. But then, nobody in the past has ever known either.

We move into the future blindly. Surely we cannot go into the future

trying to answer the problems of the 1980s with solutions from the

1930s. That's what this government is trying to do: hold us in the past

in terms of how we deliver health care, hold us in the past when it

comes to the fiscal management of this province, hold us in the past

with ideas about energy, the production of energy, the financial

formulas around energy. They're always in the past; they think that's

being conservative.

Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of

whether you're a socialist, a liberal, or a conservative. The problems

that we face have to have good management answers. It's not enough to

stand up and say: "We, the Social Credit government, want to create the

proper climate." Do you know what their whole package is when it comes

to anything around money? They say: "We believe in balanced budgets and

in creating the proper climate."

There's a pretty good

indication that it's not balanced budgeting — they're really practising

quite a bit of Keynesian economics, and they're fiscally spending. We

can question whether or not they're spending it in the areas they

should be spending it in. But they are not a government of balanced

budgets, for sure.

Do they create the proper climate? Energy

is the key to our future. Do they create the proper climate for a good

economic base in this province? First of all, they never explained what

that means. We suspect, from watching their actions — because they've

never explained what they mean — that creating the proper climate is

giving it away. They say to the resource extractors: "Come on and get

it, boys. We're going to create the proper climate. Our proper climate

is that we're going to give it to you as cheap as we can." Is that what

they mean by "proper climate"? They've never explained to this

Legislature or to the people of B.C. what they mean by "proper

climate." Do you know what that means? That means they have no respect

for us. They have no respect for the people of this province, because

they believe that when they say that, that's good enough for us, that

somehow these clichés are enough for the people of the 1980s.

Mr.

Chairman, they made a mistake when they allowed the children of working

people to go to school. Our people have been to university and now know

about economics and the wise use of energy in academic terms. The

working people of this province have been to school. We can read and

write, and now we will not take such a stupid explanation for an

economic policy as "a proper climate;" we want to know what that

government means by "proper climate." It's not just enough to use the

clichés.

Mr. Chairman, we would not be a responsible

opposition if we were to give that minister one further dime for travel

until he can prove to us that during his travels he's learned something

— not that he's gone out and told people something but that he's

learned something. The people in this province have a lot to say that

makes sense. They're not dummies, and they're not going to be fooled by

clichés. They want some pretty concrete well-thought-out answers.

That

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has shown us one or

two things: firstly, that he doesn't seem to be prepared to listen to

the average British Columbian; and secondly, that he has nothing to say

on his own. I don't know whether he reads, but there are all sorts of

new ideas being put forward in the 1980s about the management of our

resources and the management of our economy. The past is not always the

way to go. They cling to the past. They cling to government and their

old ideas, and they are afraid to move into the future because, like

us, they don't know what it holds. A government that is afraid to

address the future is a government that doesn't deserve any more money,

especially in the sensitive area of energy. They have to listen and

they have to talk about it in this Legislature. As far as we're

concerned, we're not going to give him any more money to travel to talk

to people. If we even got a commitment that he'd talk with people it

would be a forward move, and the future may look a little brighter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, that was quite a speech. It was hardly relevant to the

amendment, and I would hope that the Chairman would allow me to answer

some of the questions the member raised, which had nothing to do with

the amendment, and give me the same kind of latitude in order that I

may respond.

We are talking about travel, and I have said to

the committee that much of the travel — in fact the majority of the

travel I do — is in this province and is in the interests of attempting

to develop and respond to the energy policy which this province has. As

a matter of fact, we are one of the few jurisdictions in North America

that has an energy policy that is accepted as such and that is being

implemented in order that we might

[ Page 7961 ]

achieve some measure of energy self-sufficiency and security — or both — in a reasonable time.

Mr.

Chairman, it bothers me sometimes when that particular member uses his

expertise at oratory to talk about the working people of the province

and uses some kind of royal "we" to associate himself or his party

alone with the working people of the province. I won't dwell on that,

but I want to say that there is not very much of a difference between

the balance of numbers between this side of the House and the other. I

would stack this side of the House up against that side of the House

any day in the numbers of people who have worked with their hands, who

have worked in the communities and who have worked for a living. I

happen to be very proud of having worked for a living all of my life

and intend to continue to do so. It's a sort of backhanded slur on

other members of this Legislature that that member uses quite often. It

disturbs me, and I don't want it to go unchallenged.

I make

no apologies, Mr. Chairman, for travelling this province to discuss and

listen and develop policies based on what the people of the province of

British Columbia think. That member neither listens nor travels,

because if he did he would understand that the evolution of the

policies of this government has come, more than for any political party

in the history of this province, from the people at the grassroots

level. I've never been involved with any group of any kind which dealt

so intimately with the people who live in the communities to develop

their policies. I'm proud of that. We intend to continue to develop our

policies in that way.

The member talks about living in the

past. I reject that. I will talk in a moment about some of the new

policies and experiments which are going on in British Columbia,

probably unique on the continent. There are some things which are old

and some things which are proven, which will continue to serve us well

— probably forever — especially in terms of the two items the member

mentioned in his debate: health and energy. It's easy to talk about new

things, let's go here and let's go there.

The member

mentioned holistic medicine. One of the things I learned when I was

travelling — I'm able to travel around this province — is that

there is a holistic medicine centre in Atlin, British Columbia. I'm

sure the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) isn't too happy about it.

It's based on the theory that because the building in that community is

built like a pyramid, all people have to do is come in and spend a

little time in that pyramid, and all their ills will go away. It'

called the Atlin holistic centre. If that's what that member I

advocating, then that's something that is new and exciting that I

reject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A bit of latitude was allowed

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) with respect to health — think

that latitude has been reciprocated to the minister. Could the

committee return to the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Actually,

we're on a amendment, Mr. Chairman. I'm not being critical of the Chair

at all, but I hope the Chairman would interrupt other members in the

same way he's interrupted me when they stray from the amendment, which

hasn't happened to this point a least.

The member talks

about new ideas in energy. One of the newer ideas — it's not futuristic

by any means — that has come along in the last century is nuclear

power. A lot of the world now supplies its electricity needs from

nuclear energy.

In some countries in Europe, 90 percent of

their electricity is provided by nuclear power. That's a new idea,

reasonably, that this government has rejected. I recall when the member

who spoke before me was a member of government, when that government

had the opportunity to guide the energy needs of British Columbia for

about three years, and he never addressed the question of nuclear

power. In those days, B.C. Hydro was actively planning for a nuclear

reactor on Vancouver Island. Obviously it must have been with the

concurrence of the government of the day, which happened to be the NDP.

The

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who was a minister in the

government of the day, actually issued permits, orders-in-council,

allowing nuclear exploration to happen in British Columbia.

The public has a short memory. I guess the public has to be reminded of those

things. This government has rejected that new idea. Obviously, the socialists

believe that that's a good way of supplying energy. We don't think we

need it in British Columbia, because we have a lot of other sources of electricity.

The socialists in Saskatchewan have made their province — relative to other

provinces — rich by selling uranium to other provinces. The socialists did that,

not some antediluvian party which lived in the past.

I might have something here about some of these new ideas that would interest

the members of the committee. This is a news release from the government of

Manitoba. For those of you who perhaps were on holidays or somewhere and weren't

around when the news happened, there's a new government in Manitoba now.

The premier is Howard Pawley, and I believe he describes himself as a socialist.

I would describe him as a socialist. He has proposed, according to this news

release, that planning for future electricity development and transmission

be undertaken on a cooperative basis for the entire western region of North

America to ensure the best and most extensive use of hydro power. Then he goes

on to say that they should be building this hydro power to displace less attractive

power sources in places like California so that they can export hydro power

from Manitoba to California. I suppose they have to build transmission lines

to do that. It just seems to me that there are some new ideas which must be

rejected. One of them is the idea of providing nuclear-fuelled electricity in

British Columbia, which this government — not the previous government — did.

I want to try to answer all the questions, because the member did raise some

interesting and important questions.

Many of the things that that member talked about have come out of some book

that he read. I believe it probably was only one book he read about some kind

of a conserver society.

AN HON. MEMBER: His finger wore out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, his finger wore out and he didn't get

to a second book.

He talks about the need for providing alternative energy. I agree with that,

but one of the reasons that I said that the member had neither travelled nor

listened is that in this Legislature, during debate on the estimates of my ministry

— not only this year but in previous years as well — we have talked a lot about

alternative energy and we've talked a lot about ways in which our energy

needs could be reached not only in the eighties but into the year 2000 and beyond

that.

They are going to be achieved by the use of some new ideas along with some

old ideas. It is not good enough to just stand

[ Page 7962 ]

this House and reject things like hydro power on a large scale to serve

large populations and other traditional forms of energy.

happen to believe — I believe that most people in British Columbia

share this view — that hydro electricity is the greatest gift that this

province has ever had. Without the abundant hydroelectric sources that

we have in this province we would have been forced to go into

coal-fired generation projects with all the attendant environmental

risks that that entails; to nuclear-powered energy sources, with the

many unknown risks that that entails; or we may have been forced not to

have the kind of lifestyle that we have in this province today, the

kind of lifestyle not only enjoyed by our citizens but in many ways

demanded by them. That is not to say that the demand of all of us — I

include every member of this Legislature — has not become somewhat

excessive, because I believe it has. There must be a way in which we

can convince the citizens of British Columbia — the citizens of the

world — that we have got to moderate those demands for electrical

energy particularly, and I guess for other forms of energy as well. I

believe that is happening, and I believe it will happen increasingly in

the future.

I believe that traditional sources of energy are

going to be with us for a long time and we must make the best

advantages of the strengths that we have — in this province we are very

fortunate that we have a number of strengths that other jurisdictions

in the world don't have in terms of energy — but at the same time we

must explore new ideas. If that member had travelled around this

province, had listened to what was said in this Legislature in the

past, he would have discovered that there are a lot of things happening

in this province in terms of trying to make better use of the strengths

that we have and better use of new ideas that are coming forward.

The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) reminds me that it might be a

pretty good idea to visit the Hydro research centre in Burnaby and just

find out exactly what is happening. If the members are timid about

wanting to move away from these hallowed chambers and travel all the

way to Burnaby, I would be glad to make the arrangements for them so

that they could find out about some of the things that are happening

here in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, if they want to take the time

and if they're not too lazy to attend.... It seems that many of the

members who weren't here at the opening this morning at 9:30 were the

same members who worried last night about working late. There were six

members here at 9:30 this morning. You were standing up here in your

highest way talking about wanting to work all night, and you couldn't

even get up this morning.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the amendment, hon. member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the members aren't listening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the committee to come to order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the member who spoke before me talked about tax

writeoffs. In energy-related products and services we have created a

number of tax-free products in this province, ranging from solar to

conversions for compressed natural gas units for alternative fuel for

automobiles. There's a host of them that this government has introduced

in this Legislature.

The member talks about new machinery.

All over this province industry is retooling, and I must congratulate

industry for retooling to create energy efficiency within those

industries. If that member had travelled around this province he could

see it in the Prince George sawmills. They are moving off propane and

onto wood waste to operate their kiln lumber-drying operations. He

could see it the Kootenays, on Vancouver Island, in northeastern

British Columbia, in northwestern British Columbia. It's happening in

every part of this province. Industry and government are working

together to provide better ways to manufacture the energy which drives

our industry in this province.

Home insulation. If he

travelled around this province he would see that it's happening in

every comer of British Columbia. Government, private enterprise and

homeowners are working together to better insulate their homes and

businesses in order to cut down on the need for energy. If that member

had travelled this province and looked around he would have seen that

there are over 100 solar demonstration units in place right now. This

is government working with the private homeowner to develop

demonstration projects to ensure that we at least know exactly what

savings in terms of dollars and energy can be made by the further use

of solar power. If that member had travelled not very far from this

Legislature — over to Rocky Point — he would have seen a windmill, Mr.

— Chairman, which is a demonstration project operated jointly by

British Columbia Hydro, the federal government and the British Columbia

government to find out exactly what kinds of savings in terms of

dollars and energy that the province can look forward to as a result of

that alternative form of energy.

When we talk about new

ideas, we're not talking about new forms of energy. I happen to have

grown up on a farm, and I've had the opportunity to work for a living.

One of the finest times of our lives when we lived on that farm was

getting the chance to listen to some of the great, old radio programs

on Sunday evenings: "Jack Benny Show," "Fibber McGee and Molly," and

all of those shows. You know how we got the power for our radio? It was

one those newfangled forms of energy — a windmill. It's one of the

newfangled forms of energy that the members opposite talk about. We got

all the power on our farm from a windmill. Not only did we get the

power from a windmill, but we also fed all our animals by the use of

that windmill. It's a great new idea, which was invented about 150

years ago or maybe 300, 400 or 500 years ago.

Mr. Chairman,

the member talks about nothing being done on alternative energy. I wish

he'd come and talk to some of the people in my ministry and find out,

because we're doing a lot and we intend to do a lot more. In Port

Alberni, we are working on ways in which we can further enhance the use

of wood waste for energy. It's government and industry working together.

MR. SKELLY: Where?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In Port Alberni, at MacMillan-Bloedel.

are working on forms of small hydro so that — in remote locations and

perhaps in small communities or small industrial operations we can make

better use of small hydro,

[ Page 7963 ]

rather

than having to build the huge dams and wait for those developments to

come in. We think that we'd be better off — and I believe that that's

the route we will go — to develop something a little smaller and so get

the industrial development earlier, rather than having to wait for some

large form of energy source.

The member talked about an

energy policy. In 1980 we brought down an energy policy which we

described at that time as a framework — or a starting-point, at least —

from which we could build on those strengths that I mentioned before,

and develop new ideas and new ways in which we could achieve

sufficiency in energy. The two most important aspects of that energy

policy were, first of all, stewardship — the need to be good stewards

of the resources which we have — and secondly, the need to make British

Columbians self-sufficient in energy at the earliest possible moment.

It has been progressing and will continue to progress. We've had some

roadblocks thrown in our way, the most serious of which was the

national energy program. The national energy program put a great wedge

between the ability of the provinces to develop self-sufficiency and

the ability of the federal government to pursue a philosophical goal in

energy which has effectively destroyed much of the traditional activity

in many of our energy sectors.

Despite that we've made some

progress, and we will continue to make progress. We would earnestly

hope as a government that the national Liberal government would

understand the error of its ways and change — in fact, dismantle — the

national energy program and perhaps keep its hands off the business

that the provinces know best. I don't think that will happen under the

Trudeau government, but as British Columbians we can hope there may he

some changes in which wiser heads will prevail.

Despite

that, we are making some progress. I said when we announced our energy

policy that.... I'll use one example: energy from wood wastes was

supplying — it was a statistic that surprised me at that time, and I

think it surprised a lot of British Colombians — something like 17

percent of our total energy needs at that time. That's a very healthy

figure and one that I think we should be proud of, because it's an

example of industry and government working together to ensure that they

make the best use of their energy resources. Since that statement was

released in 1980, that figure has improved even further. Today wood

waste is supplying over 20 percent of all of the energy needs of

British Columbia, of all of the energy output of British Columbia.

we're making some good progress in a lot of those areas that are

necessary for us to achieve energy self-sufficiency. We haven't

achieved all of the goals that we need to. It will take some time for

us to do that. But we will if we can keep our eye on the road and if we

can withstand some of the pressures that build and might move us away

from that goal. I don't think that we'll have any difficulty. I believe

we will reach our goals. I believe that we will be able to ensure that

British Columbians need not worry about being held to ransom to outside

energy suppliers.

The member said that we were paying

lip-service to many of these things. He talked about geothermal, for

instance. This Legislature has just passed

an act which will allow us

to actively develop whatever geothermal resources this province may

have. The party opposite voted against it. They were against the

development of the geothermal resources of this province, one of the

few truly renewable resources that we have. Nevertheless, we are going

ahead. We are drilling wells in the Meager Creek area to prove up one

of the geothermal resources that we have, and there will be further

activity all over British Columbia.

I want to deal with the

matter.... Perhaps I've already dealt with it. The member who spoke

previously talked about outdated ideas, I want to maintain in this

Legislature that the energy policy of this government still sees that

hydroelectric development is not only the best form of energy, but is

also truly renewable, an opportunity for the future, and must he

developed to its best possible potential, in keeping with all the

social and environmental concerns of our communities. We cannot, with

one statement, reject that there will be further hydroelectric

development in this province. If that's what that party is saying, then

I reject it.

The first thing that member raised and the last

thing I want to deal with, in regard to the debate on this amendment by

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who spoke previously, has to do

with the energy agreement signed between ourselves and the national

government. The member said that we should not have signed that

agreement. I want briefly to tell the committee the consequences of not

signing that agreement.

We don't like the national energy

program. We would like the national energy program to be scrapped and

started over again. We do not agree with the federal government that

the national energy program will bring us energy self-sufficiency in

1990 or at any other time. In fact, we believe that the national energy

program will ensure that we do not reach energy security in Canada.

Having

said that, we must accept that the national energy program is in place.

It is a federal government program, and we had a responsibility as

government to get the best possible deal from the federal government we

could under that program, We got the best possible deal we could have

had. If we had not signed that agreement, today we would be paying

excise tax on the export of natural gas costing British Columbia

taxpayers in the neighbourhood of $500 million over the next four

years. We were able to negotiate that excise tax out of the national

energy program. That party wants us to pay that $500 million in excise

taxes. Had we not signed that agreement, we would have been responsible

as Alberta is today because they were not able to negotiate, out of the

petroleum incentive program, grants that will save this province $600

million in the next four years. That party wants us, as a government

with taxpayers' money, to pay that $600 million. I reject that on

behalf of the British Columbia government.

Mr. Chairman, I will obviously vote against this amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to make a few comments in opposition to the amendment.

can certainly appreciate the concern that has been expressed by members

of the opposition about how we, as ministers, might account for some of

those expenditures that fall within our budgets. One member mentioned,

for example, furniture. I can appreciate that. I too have a very well

furnished office. That furniture was purchased by my predecessor, who

was the Minister of Human Resources with the New Democratic Party while

they were in government back in 1973-74.

[ Page 7964 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, we are on an amendment to the vote of the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It is quite in order for the

minister to comment on that, but please be relevant to the estimates

before us.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm

just using a reasonable comparison. I'm saying that I can appreciate

the concern expressed about budgetary matters and about the purchase of

furniture or such things as travel. I'm just saying that I can agree

with those concerns, because I have an office which was very well

furnished by a predecessor, who was the Minister of Human Resources

during the NDP years. Similarly, I've heard the Minister of Energy say

that he too has an office well furnished by his predecessor, a minister

in the NDP administration back in 1974-75.

Perhaps there is

no need to go into this further. We all have some concern about what

moneys might possibly be expended on furniture and the like. I can

appreciate the concern expressed about travel. I know that some

ministers need to travel a whole lot more than others. I like getting

around the province as much as possible, and I know the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources must travel and does travel a

great deal in the province. He does — as other ministers do — need to

keep in fairly close contact at all times with people in all parts of

the province, especially with those industries he represents, to

discover their concerns and perhaps learn first-hand what they might

like to see done that would improve the economic circumstances in those

particular communities. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources has done an excellent job in keeping in very close contact

with people in all parts of the province. I know that he travels long

and hard and puts in many hours. The people everywhere — be they in

Fort St. John, Atlin, Prince George, Cranbrook or wherever in the

province — are most appreciative of having the opportunity of meeting

with the minister on a regular basis. I support the minister and all

ministers taking every opportunity to travel and meet with the people,

regardless of where in the province.

I know mention has been

made of travel elsewhere, out of the province. I can appreciate the

concern about ministers travelling out of the province, be it to the

U.S. or to Europe. Possibly a minister in a ministry such as Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources must travel abroad much more than, say, I

in my position as Minister of Municipal Affairs. As a matter of fact, I

seldom, if ever, get much beyond the B.C. boundary, and that is fine.

There is no need to travel abroad that much in a ministry such as the

one which I represent. But Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

requires that we obtain the investment of capital from other places if

we are to see communities in the province prosper, grow and provide

opportunities for us and our children. The comparison is one which we

might refer to, but certainly a ministry such as that would see the

need much more than the one I am involved with.

I can also

see where in time we might need to address ourselves to a clearer

policy with respect to that. I can recall that my NDP predecessor as

Minister of Municipal Affairs — talking about travel — travelled the

whole of Europe to look at various transit systems. I can certainly

understand that people in British Columbia may question why a Minister

of Municipal Affairs should travel the whole of Europe or the world to

look at various transit systems, especially when the end result is only

the acquisition of a train in Germany that doesn't fit the track or

buses in Saskatoon which are only good for parts. I can appreciate why

we might question the need for travel in some ministries. I can

understand that there could be concern about travel outside the

province when, for example, a predecessor of mine as Minister of Human

Resources travelled to various places all over Europe in order to find

out about the various types of social welfare in those other cities.

Perhaps there is every reason why we ought to be looking at travel, be

it in the province or out, and I don't question the validity of that,

which is why I raise it now. Maybe, though — repeating it once more —

some ministries, as I think the NDP proved while they were in office,

do not need to travel abroad as much as a ministry such as Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, which is directly involved in economic

matters. I think that the parallel should be drawn. Particularly in

tough economic times all over the world, in our country and on the

continent, I think it may be opportune and just that we discuss it.

am also particularly interested in the mention which was made by

members of the opposition, in speaking in support of the amendment, of

the need for us to look at alternative energy sources, I could not

agree more, and I commend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources for the various initiatives that have occurred and are in

process to assure us every opportunity of considering whatever

alternatives might be available. I know that perhaps we as a government

have ruled out some of those alternatives. There is at least one I can

think of in particular, and that is the one which the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has been very supportive of: atomic or

nuclear energy. Perhaps the opposition may wish to criticize us for

taking a position against that particular alternative, but we as a

government do not see the need now nor do we suggest it to be prudent,

to embark upon developing nuclear energy, as was so much supported by

the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and, I suppose, many

members that represent the NDP. That alternative has been ruled out,

but certainly there are other alternatives.

Yesterday we

debated the Ministry of Agriculture's estimates. I can appreciate where

much use could be made of waste materials in fuelling and providing

heat, for example, to assure us greater opportunities in the field of

agriculture. Large greenhouse complexes, which might make us

competitive with California or other places providing produce to

British Columbia, could be fuelled with waste energy. I would hope that

the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources would consider

what alternatives might be available or how better they could be

researched to make that opportunity available to assist not only our

attempts to provide alternative uses of energy, but to assist us in

using what might otherwise be a difficult-to-dispose-of waste material,

and at the same time to assist agriculture to flourish more in our

beautiful province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm

very supportive, Mr. Chairman, of us looking at all alternatives.

However, I don't believe we should in any way rule out the

opportunities that we have in British Columbia for developing the

traditional sources of energy as well. We are a very fortunate people

in British Columbia compared to any other place in the world when you

see what is available to us and what we tend to take for granted. It's

unfortunate that we have such demented groups still in our society here

that would do what we saw occur on the North Island, where the

[ Page 7965 ]

very

unfortunate incident took place only a few days ago, destroying a

public asset worth five to six million dollars. That is terribly

unfortunate. That particular group, which has at least made us aware

that they exist by writing to the various newspapers and contacting

different radio stations, is, I think, not only committing a horrendous

crime against the people of British Columbia but obviously is

threatening the opportunity to pursue the development of these

traditional sources to carry on a lifestyle that we've been accustomed

to and enjoy, and to allow as well the opportunity of seeing industry

developed in British Columbia and thereby creating employment

opportunities. That group is certainly to be condemned in every respect

for what has happened, and hopefully they'll be sought out and found

and punished accordingly.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we

as responsible people have to consider how fortunate we are in having

these traditional sources available to us. I can never quite understand

such remarks as have been made by the NDP energy critic — and perhaps

he'll make them again — that his solution is that we should somehow

turn out the lights at a certain hour at night and not turn them on

again until a certain hour in the morning. That is not the solution.

Energy can be a tremendous opportunity for us to provide job

opportunities to British Columbians.

I would hope that

perhaps during this debate, following the defeat of this useless

amendment, we may hear a little more from the opposition as to what we

might do to develop alternative sources and how we in government can

assist such a suggestion, attempt or recommendation by members,

whatever side they sit on in the House. It's too bad that we've seen

opposition — and hopefully this might be clarified by members of the

opposition — from the opposition to such things as geothermal energy,

which I think offers tremendous opportunities.

MR. COCKE: You're out of your tree.

MR. SKELLY: No, he's lying.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've seen opposition to hydroelectric dams again,

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. hon. member. I must ask the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) to withdraw the remark that the Chair unfortunately

overheard.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would be

delighted to, and I would also be delighted if there were some candid

comments coming from that side of the House. That has been going on all

morning.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to withdraw my statement that the minister was lying as well. I'll correct it later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The minister continues on the amendment to vote 28.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

We've certainly seen in that opposition lack of support for the

development of, or the opportunity for the development of,

hydroelectric sources and energy from coal. The only thing that I as a

member — and I think there are many people that understand likewise in

all parts of British Columbia — have heard from the opposition over the

years is that possibly they would like to work a deal with the Trudeau

government in Ottawa to sell out the opportunities for the development

of energy, for the development of our resources; to sell them out to

the federal government and have them take control. That again is

something that I as a member of government cannot support, nor would I

stand for it. We as British Columbians must control — and continue to

keep control of — the tremendous potential that exists for our people

in energy, mines and in petroleum resources. I support the minister,

and I am much against this amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I

was very interested in the minister's speech today. It contained a lot

of new information that will be valuable to the House. Unfortunately,

the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) got up and, as usual

for him in debates of this type. dragged the debate down, misquoted

members on this side of the House, misinterpreted speeches of other

members and generally detracted from the level of debate. It's

unfortunate that that happens. The minister spends very little time in

the House, and when he's in the House he spends very little time paying

attention.

I was really surprised at his last statement that

the NDP want to give away the energy resources of the province to

Pierre Trudeau, with whom he spent a great time having his picture

taken back in 1968 when he was afflicted with Trudeau mania and thought

he was going to take the citizens of this province into Trudeau's fold

back east. He's changed parties a number of times since that time, and

I hear he may change parties again. It's unfortunate, the way that

member drags down the tone of this debate and doesn't contribute much

to the quality of information, and, in fact, contributes a great deal

of misinformation that isn't at all helpful to this House or the people

of this province.

The minister mentioned hydro as the

greatest gift that this province has. I think that leads us to a bit of

a distortion in the way we view the energy resources of British

Columbia. It is definitely a gift. It is one of many gifts. But when we

tend to think of it as the greatest gift, then we look at it as an

energy resource above and beyond all others. Looking at hydro as the

greatest gift is a very dangerous way of looking at it. All the kinetic

energy of water is contained in valleys that are higher than sea level.

We want to take the energy out of that water as it falls towards sea

level, and use that energy for whatever means, mechanical, heat energy

or whatever. It's the very location of that water and the gradient

between mountain and sea that's extremely important as well.

Another

extremely great and valuable gift this province has are valleys

productive of timber, wildlife and water for domestic purposes. We

should treasure those things as much as hydro, and in some cases more,

because those things — productive valleys and river bottoms — unlike

hydro, which is a renewable resource, can never be replaced. They're an

extremely valuable non-renewable resource. Throughout this province we

have destroyed river bottoms, productive timberland and productive

wildlife land. It has been to the detriment of this province that we

have developed hydroelectric power in some cases without giving

sufficient thought to the nonrenewable resources that have been

destroyed, or to the resources made non-renewable as a result of

hydroelectric development.

If the minister wants this party's endorsement for hydroelectric power as a future power potential for this province,

[ Page 7966 ]

then

he's got it. He's got it from the member for Nelson-Creston as well.

But if you want to go into specifics as to where that power should be

developed and what resources should be sacrificed to obtain that

hydroelectric development, then we are prepared to argue with the

minister, as are many other citizens throughout the province who are

concerned about other resources equally valuable and useful to the

citizens of this province, which, if they are not covered by hundreds

of feet of water, will be useful and productive and will contribute to

our economy for years and years. If the minister wants to talk about

the specific sites for hydroelectric development then we are prepared

to argue those sites, but on the principle of developing hydroelectric

power and the value of hydroelectric power to this province, the

minister has no argument from this party at all. We would like to get

together. We would like to have some kind of mechanism to discuss

hydroelectric sites: where they should take place, what type of

procedure should go into their approval.

I would like to

cast the member's mind back just a few years — not as far back as some

of his policies — to a time when standing committees operated in this

Legislature and looked into issues such as resource development. I

don't think the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources

has met since the Social Credit government took office in 1976. When

those committees got together they got together on a problem-solving

basis. People of all party persuasions worked together in order to come

to mutually agreeable solutions. It was a way of taking away from the

acrimony of the debate in this House and of getting members of the

Legislature of all political stripes working together on resolutions to

resource issues.

The member suggested that he would arrange

for all members of this House to travel to B.C. Hydro's labs in Burnaby

and to see what good things B.C. Hydro is doing. I think that would be

an excellent idea. I would be willing to go along with that. But I

would prefer to see it done on the basis of a select standing committee

of this Legislature looking into what B.C. Hydro is doing in the way of

research. I think a number of our members would feel the same way.

There

were other things brought into the debate that are hardly worth

commenting on — the question of nuclear power. I don't think there's

any doubt in the minds of any members who are looking at it truthfully

that both parties in this Legislature are opposed to the development of

nuclear power in this province. When the NDP was government between

1972 and 1975 there was absolutely no question that nuclear power would

be developed in this province regardless of who was looking into it and

for whatever reasons. There are numerous citations from Hansard ,

which the member for Surrey selectively quoted, that would indicate

that the Premier of this province came out strongly opposed to nuclear

power on a number of occasions, and that remains the case.

really don't want to talk in any detail about energy alternatives. I

prefer to discuss energy efficiency, and not in the distorted terms

that the member for Surrey talks about it. I will probably do that

sometime later in the debate.

Right now we're talking about

the minister's travel budget and a motion to reduce the travel budget.

In the opinion of people on this side of the House, the minister has

not been effective in doing his job. His travels around the province

have not improved the policy or the administration of the provincial

government with respect to either energy or mining development. The

last time I was up during this minister's debate we were talking about

conditions at a number of mines around the province, where as a result

of the approval process within the Ministry of Mines serious accidents

happened which resulted in pollution. The first mine I talked about was

Carolin Mines, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hyndman) is familiar with Carolin Mines since he has a summer home

there and he knows the beauty of the area in the Coquihalla Valley. One

of the problems that I identified with Carolin Mines is that the

Ministry of Mines review procedure in examining that mine in the first

place did not correctly identify the dangers that would result from the

various developments at the Carolin Mines site. I suggested to the

minister that the Carolin Mine had only gone through a stage one review

procedure. The minister got up in the House that same day, on May 27,

and said it had gone through the stage two procedure. I'll quote from Hansard of May 27 in which the minister said:

is not correct that we did not receive a stage two report or that we

ever said that a stage two report would not be required. In fact, it

was required and submitted. The original assessment under the stage one

proposal was reviewed by several government agencies. There were

concerns raised by the hydrology

section of the Ministry of

Environment. Their concerns did not include any likely possibility that

the tailings dam would fail. Rather, they had some other concerns in

the area. Nevertheless, because those concerns, including those of the

Ministry of Environment's fish and wildlife branch, were submitted to

us, we required Carolin to submit a stage two addendum report. These

concerns were specifically requested to be addressed at the time.

We phoned the metal mines guidelines steering committee in the

minister's ministry, and they told us that Carolin Mines was not

required to go through the stage two process. I asked for a

summary

list of project status for all the metal mines in the province that

were going through the guidelines, and here's what they have to say

about the Ladner Creek gold project: "Designated small in April of

1980, following review of a stage one report and addendum." We obtained

the stage one reports, since the metal mines guidelines people told us

that there was no stage two report, in spite of what the minister has

said. "Carolin Mines Ltd., Ladner Creek project, stage one report...."

There was an addendum called the addendum to the stage one report,

which the minister called a stage two addendum report. The problem on

the Carolin Mines project was that it was reviewed and approved in a

slipshod manner. That was one of the problems we identified in the

approval procedure, and is one of the reasons why we've had such

problems with Carolin Mines since that time with the dumping of cyanide

and other heavy metals in the Coquihalla River system, and ultimately

into the Fraser. The minister is inaccurate when he's talking about a

stage two report being filed on the Carolin Mines project. If he's not

inaccurate, at least his ministry is accurate on this issue, because

they say that there is no stage two report. They say there is a stage

one report with addendum, and that it was approved after the stage one

report.

The minister obviously spends a lot of time travelling around

the province. He mentioned 20 trips he had taken to various mining

communities. I wish he had spent some time with the Carolin Mines

project. I wish he had examined that project and the stage one

addendum. I wish he had determined that there were serious flaws in the

development of the project, and said: "No, you must go through the full

stage two procedure, right through to the licensing procedure, because

of the geographic conditions in this area and the likelihood that this

is going to cause problems down the line." Then the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) got up and said: "You're dealing with the wrong minister.

This guy only

[ Page 7967 ]

approves

it. It's the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) that takes care

of problems after the approvals have gone through and the mine's in

operation." That's true. I suppose it's the good guy, bad guy routine.

The Minister of Mines can approve a mine in any slipshod way he

chooses, and let the Minister of Environment do all the dirty work.

So then I brought up the question of a mine in the present

riding of the member for Omineca. He got up and he read a report from

the Minister of Environment. Well, I talked to the Minister of

Environment too. What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if this

minister travels to any effect, and if this minister's travels are any

value to the people of this province, then we would certainly support

an increase in his travel budget. But since, time after time, the mines

of this province seem to be getting in trouble as a result of a

slipshod review procedure, then we feel that this minister isn't doing

his duty as he should. As a result, he doesn't deserve that extra

travel money. In fact, it's unlikely he deserves the money he's

getting, because he's not spending it to any worthwhile effect for the

taxpayers of this province.

Then the member for Omineca got up and read a letter from the Minister of Environment, and I probably have that in Hansard as well. I won't read all through it, but I'll refer the members to Hansard

for May 27, 1982, page 7841. I'll start with the first paragraph: "This

will acknowledge your memo of March 9, 1982, regarding the

spill-prevention improvements that have been undertaken by Equity

Silver Mines Ltd. near Houston." Then I'll read the first paragraph of

a letter that I got from the Minister of Environment with respect to

the Sam Goosly Mine: "This will acknowledge your letter of March 10,

1982. regarding the spill-prevention improvements that have been

undertaken by Equity Silver Mines Ltd. near Houston." The letters are

absolutely identical. I have as much information as you, Mr. Member —

through the Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: You still don't know. You come in here and ask ridiculous questions. Read your mail.

MR. SKELLY:

I'll tell you something about this letter that you might be interested

in. This was sent to me by the Minister of Environment. I don't know

where he got it. I wrote to the minister on March 10, and I received

his response on May 13, which is pretty good for that minister. But

first of all, Betty from the waste management branch — telephone

387-4321, local 214, for anyone who is interested — phoned and said she

refused to answer this letter until I submitted the names of the

petitioners. She is a secretary from the waste management branch.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is that in my estimates?

MR. SKELLY: No, but I am getting to it because it was brought up during your estimates by the member for Omineca.

Then

she phoned again on April 29, after we told her she already had the

petition — not the petition you are referring to; this one is legit.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Why don't you get him back on my estimates, Mr. Chairman?

MR. SKELLY: This relates to the Equity mine, Mr. Chairman, which the minister has no doubt travelled to on a number of occasions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, this has been a lot of fun and I know everybody is

enjoying this debate in the Legislature, but there must be some

responsibility that the administrative actions of the Minister of

Energy, in this regard.... An amendment to my expenses must relate in

some remote way at least to the Minister of Energy. The member

opposite, during the previous debate on these estimates and today on

these estimates, is dealing with nothing that is the administrative

responsibility of my ministry; rather, it is that of the Ministry of

Environment. We all know that the Minister of Environment is open,

honest and anxious to answer questions. All I say is: for gosh sake,

let's get on with my estimates, and then the member can deal with the

Minister of Environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure the member speaking will address himself to the point of order made by the minister.

MR. SKELLY:

Yes, and this relates directly to this ministry's jurisdiction, because

his ministry is the one that approves mine development in the first

place, which causes these problems down the line. It is easy enough for

him to say: "All we do is approve them. The Minister of Environment

cleans them up." What I am saying is that if the minister is spending

his travel budget properly and getting the best buck for every

taxpayers' dollar that comes into the coffers of the province.... In

our opinion, the minister is wasting his travel money; in fact, his

whole salary is being wasted because he is not improving this mines

approval procedure. He's allowing a slipshod procedure, and as a result

we have problems to clean up down the line.

Well, they

refused to send this letter to me twice because I didn't send them the

names on the petition, which they already had. Finally, when I got the

letter, it was identical to a letter they sent to the member for

Omineca. Now the member for Omineca said that the problem had all been

solved, and he read this letter into the record to prove it. Just after

he received the letter, Mr. Chairman, another 46,000 gallons of

effluent spilled from the spillage pond at the Equity mine into the

Bulkley River system and caused further problems.

The

problems at the Equity mine have not been solved, and the minister has

done nothing and has expressed no concern about the solution to these

problems. If he's a Minister of Mines worth his salt, then he should be

making sure that these mines operate on an environmentally sound basis,

and that's one of the reasons why the metal-mining guidelines were

developed in the first place. The member for Omineca doesn't seem to

care too much about what is happening in his riding, but the simple

fact is that the problems at the Equity mine have not been solved.

There is a responsibility on the part of the Minister of Mines and his

inspectors to make sure that that mine is cleaned up and that no

further spills happen. If Equity is not proceeding according to its

permits, then his inspectors should insist that they do so or be

charged.

We're concerned that the minister's travel budget

is being wasted, because he isn't effective in keeping the mines of

this province operating properly; in fact, he is not effective in

keeping the mines of this province operating at all. Look at other

articles from the papers in Omineca: "The Axe Falls at Endako"; "Endako

Mine Axe Falls"; "Business Bracing

[ Page 7968 ]

Against

Payroll Loss"; "Granisle Copper Being Shut Down on June 2 — Loss of 300

Workers." The minister is the most incompetent failure that we've ever

had as a minister of mines in the province of B.C., the most

incompetent failure. There are headlines like this everywhere around

the province showing mines closing down and people being put out of

work with no hope of jobs in the future, and this member wants an

increase in his travel budget. I think it's shameful that he should

even be coming to the House with that request. I certainly support the

cut in the travel budget that has been advocated.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I recall that member one time talking about making up facts in the

House. He also just said that I was an incompetent failure. I guess

that means I'm a success.

A lot of the items raised by the

member are certainly important items, They've been talked about here

before. I want to go over a couple of them, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I

know I can't ask members questions in committee, but it would sure help

me if I knew whether or not the member had ever visited Equity.

MR. SKELLY: Yes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Were you at the official opening?

MR. SKELLY: No, I went up with the mayor of Houston, later.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if he's ever visited Carolin.

MR. SKELLY: Not yet.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have visited Carolin Mines.

have some difficulty responding to some of the member's questions. I

don't think the member really wants me to respond to them. He's made

his speech about the things he wants to talk about, and most of them

were — I mean this very sincerely — the responsibility of the Minister

of Environment, who does have those responsibilities to ensure that the

environment of British Columbia is protected in regard to mining

operations or any other operations which have some effect on the

environment.

I have visited Carolin Mines during the trip I

mentioned earlier in the House, when I visited a great deal of British

Columbia over almost a three-week period after the Legislature rose

last session. The mine was not operating at that time. It was about 50

percent through its construction stage. Frankly, I found some things

that disturbed me about the. mine, and the way it was being developed

at that time. Senior officials of my ministry and I did talk about

that. I was assured at that time that those things had been brought to

the attention of others as well, including Fish and Wildlife people,

people in the waste management branch and a number of other people who

were concerned about some aspects mentioned the last time we talked

about this in the House. I only chose this one because it was a fairly

dramatic example of one of the things required of Carolin because of

the concerns raised particularly by Fish and Wildlife. The member would

be interested in seeing this, because it's not only a little unusual,

but a rather interesting engineering feat in that they have a very

large culvert running the entire length of the mine operation, which

would be several hundred yards. It's very expensive; it cost that mine

about $1 million extra to meet some of the requirements we put forward

in what I am calling a stage two addendum.

At the time

Carolin was going through its requirements for stage one, stage two and

stage three reports, whichever, our procedure was not as bureaucratized

and laid down as it is today. Today that would have been a stage two

report. In those days it was an addendum to the only report they really

had to put forward. But it doesn't make any difference. The concerns

were raised; the concerns were given to Carolin, and Carolin was made

to do certain things.

Frankly, the problem.... I don't want

to tread on an area that is before the courts now — the member knows

perfectly well that many charges were laid against Carolin Mines — not

by my ministry, but by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of

Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa, because those are the areas that were

violated. And they were violated; it wasn't that the requirements

weren't there, but that the company violated the procedures in place

and they've been charged. I think the member would agree there's not

much more you can do. I don't know what the outcome of the charges will

be. I wouldn't even presume to think whether they'll be fined, jailed

or whatever, or the mine closed down; I don't know. That matter is now

before the courts, and that's where it should be. It's before the

courts because those procedures were put in place, and the company

apparently violated them.

We were talking about travel. It's

important that I get around the province because I did have a pretty

good feel for what was happening in Hope with that mine. I have a

pretty good feel for a lot of the other areas I visited — not only

mining, but many other areas of energy as well.

I was

interested in the comments the member made about Hydro. They seemed to

me, at least, to be a little contradictory. The NDP has, in this

Legislature, voted against such progressive things as the Geothermal

Resources Act. They voted against all Hydro borrowing that I can

remember, yet the member tells me today that he is in favour of Hydro

development. He said: "I am in favour of Hydro, development and so is

this party," but they want to talk about where the Hydro development

is. He has already given us a lecture on hydroelectricity and how the

water flows downhill so you can capture the energy from it. You have to

have the water where it is going to flow downhill. We already know that

because the member told us, but he says he wants to talk about the

sites.

I believe that member was elected in 1972. Is that

correct? He has been talking about this since 1972. I don't know how

many times he has made the same speech in this House, but it's been a

lot of times. He says: "Water flows downhill." If he has been so

interested in this matter since 1972, why didn't he tell the members of

the cabinet he was serving under as a government backbencher not to go

ahead with the Hydro developments it was planning? Why didn't he tell

them not to let that water flow downhill anymore'? Why didn't he tell

them which sites he wanted developed? If he did, nobody listened to

him. That's even worse. That poor member for Port Alberni was sitting

there trying to get his ideas across to the very NDP that he serves,

and they wouldn't even listen to him. I think that is shocking.

[ Page 7969 ]

they didn't listen, he's had another six years of another government

and he's had the chance to come in this Legislature every year and talk

about Hydro. Why didn't he tell this Legislature where he wants those

dams built? Why don't you give us a list of which dams you want? I'll

have a good look at it and I'll make sure that Hydro does too. You tell

us, because you never have. Mr. Chairman, he's never told you which

dams he wants built and where he wants them built. All he does is come

in and lecture us about how water flows downhill. I knew that. That

member would come in here and tell us you can push a rope. We know you

can't do that.

Anyway, we're talking about travel and office

expenses. One of the previous speakers in this debate talked about our

relationship with Canada, and how we shouldn't have signed that energy

agreement that will save us over $1 billion in the next four years. I

reject that kind of stuff, just as I reject that party over there

telling us not to allow the private sector to get involved in the

geothermal resource development of this province. I bet every member on

this side of the House rejects that. I reject the former Premier of

this province, the opposition leader of this Legislature, telling the

people of British Columbia and Canada that if he's ever elected again,

he will give the control of the resources of British Columbia away to

the federal government. That member shakes his head.

MR. SKELLY: That's a half-truth.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the members are accusing me of telling half-truths.

Suppose I added that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will

Is that getting better?

'MR. SKELLY: You're getting closer.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Maybe what I should do is read exactly what he said. There has been a

lot of talk in here about this party cozying up to the Liberals. You'll

never find me cozying up to the Trudeau government, as long as I've got

a breath left in my body. Let me read to you from Hansard of March 4, 1974. The person quoted in Hansard is Hon. Mr. Barrett:

The

NDP has been the balance of power and kept the Liberals there,

extracting a number of commitments that they thought were worthwhile.

Who's cozying up to the Liberals, to the Trudeau government'?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When did it go to court? I don't remember it.

Then Hon. Mr. Barrett went on to say, during that same debate on March 4, 1974:

1 believe that all of the natural gas and oil in this country

should be publicly owned under federal control.

He'll give the resources of this province away to the Trudeau government. I reject that.

We're

talking about travel. The House Leader wants me to stop, but I really

must go on just for a moment before we adjourn for lunch. I know those

members don't like working past 12 o'clock, but I think we need another

five minutes to talk a bit more about travel. I don't usually quote

from newspaper articles in this House, but I want to read you one

today, Mr. Chairman, because you've asked me so many times to read this

article to you. It's because it's written by one of Canada's better

writers and a person who is one of your admirers, His name is Allan

Fotheringham. It was written June 19, 1975. It says:

"Travel

is broadening, but politics is better. There's something about

politicians, once in power, that moves them to race to the nearest

branch of Thomas Cook. For some reason, they think it is up to the

taxpayer to make up for their neglected education. Join the navy and

see the world? Better still, join the NDP and see it by first-class jet.

"If

you look at the travel budget of the NDP, there is some small suspicion

that a number of Mr. Barrett's merry band do indeed feel deep in their

hearts that they are good for only one term" — they were right about

that — "so it's a sprint to the Vancouver International Airport to see

who can see the globe first.

"With ministers

scattering to the winds once again before the session is closed —

Premier Barrett and Attorney-General Alex Macdonald to England,

Economic Development Minister Gary Lauk to Sweden, Speaker Gordon

Dowding to a parliamentary meeting in Quebec — it is pertinent to do a

little investigation into the truly remarkable travel record piled up

by this government in less than three years. One of the problems is

that the information is hard to find but, even if incomplete, take a

look.

"Premier Barrett: last federal budget he

was in Hawaii; this federal budget he'll be in Britain. This is the

lad, remember, who on achieving power in 1972 had never been to

Montreal, let alone off the continent. In 1973 he went to England, had

tea with the Queen and continued on to Paris, Düsseldorf, Bonn,

Frankfurt, Munich, Vienna and Amsterdam.

"In

early 1974 he went to Japan and called in at Hong Kong. Six months

later he was back in Hong Kong" — must have forgot his suit — "on the

way to China. Aside from his legitimate trips to Washington, New York

and Ottawa, he's been to Nova Scotia to campaign in a NDP by-election

and to St. Louis to accept an honorary degree. Now he is back in

Britain.

"Health Minister Dennis Cocke: to Hong Kong and China in 1974, Hawaii on the way back.

"Education

Minister Eileen Dailly: at the invitation of Ottawa" — oh. those were

those Trudeau Liberals who invited her — "to a 1973 education

conference in Paris and another in Britain.

"Provincial

Secretary Ernie Hall: to Britain in 1973 'to study pulp markets.' It's

amazing how many people have relatives near pulp markets.

"Labour Minister Bill King: to an international labour convention in the U.S., fair enough, and a holiday in Hawaii.

"Economic Development Minister Gary Lauk: to the U.S. in

his first year to study the legislative process. In 1974 to Japan and Hong Kong.

Now he's off to Sweden to: 'study experiences in promoting viable communities

in less developed areas and decentralization of population.'"

I still look forward to that report.

"Highways Minister Graham Lea. His trip to the Caribbean,

his department says, was a personal holiday."

[ Page 7970 ]

That is okay.

" Human Resources Minister Levi: a 1973 trip to London, Holland, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and Israel.

"Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Lorimer: in 1974, off to France, England, Germany, Switzerland."

The

best part of all is that he went to Yugoslavia. Do you know why? "To

study transportation systems and inspect buses in Yugoslavia."

"Attorney-General

Alec Macdonald: he likes to catch Wimbledon and, after touring China

last fall, he now has the good luck to be in London with Barrett just

in time to stumble upon Wimbledon again.

"Housing

Minister Lorne Nicolson: in 1974 was away on the silver bird to Sweden,

Norway and Finland to view housing developments.

"Mines

Minister Leo Nimsick: to England (coal conference), to Liberia in

Africa, to Germany (reclamation processes), to Italy (geothermal

plants).

"Recreation and Conservation Minister Jack Radford...."

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who, do you say? How soon we forget.

He, too, made it quietly to Europe last year — to Germany to inspect

wildlife management areas and then stopped in for a similar foray in

Britain.

" Transport Minister Bob Strachan: Yet another 1974 visit to London.

"Agriculture minister Dave Stupich...."

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, poor Dave. It says here: "All he could manage was to Japan on a

Japan Air Lines inaugural flight." I wonder who paid for that.

"Resources Minister Bob Williams: To Finland in 1973, to

Belgium in 1974, plus the jaunts to Washington. Last week he was in Madison,

Wisconsin."

Just as an aside, Mr. Chairman, I remember that Madison, Wisconsin speech,

when a student at the university there phoned Victoria and said that Mr. Williams

was talking about CIA agents sneaking around British Columbia, and making all

kinds of other wild statements. He was very surprised when he came back and

found out they had press reporters in Madison, Wisconsin too, and they came

back here and talked about it. He was very surprised about that trip.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Fotheringham doesn't say that.

"Consumer Affairs Phyllis Young: To Australia in March to study consumer affairs for three weeks.

"Don't

think sharing the goodies stops with the cabinet. Back-bench MLAs the

Premier wishes to favour — or shake for a while — also get in on it."

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, you're not here, Alberni. They didn't listen to you and they didn't take you anywhere either.

"Emery Barnes toured China with the Premier.

"Rosemary Brown saw Sweden And Cuba on a United Nations fellowship."

Maybe Mr. Trudeau had something to do with that one.

"Frank Calder, after being sacked from the cabinet, attended a three-week parliamentary course in London.

"Carl Liden was the B.C. rep to the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva.

"Karen Sanford attended the Commonwealth Conference in Sri Lanka.

"But

the champion of all is Speaker Gordon Dowding, the fastest airline

ticket in the west. He has visited India and inspected 'the grandmother

of parliaments' in Iceland. Has done London, of course. Attended the

same Commonwealth Conference in Sri Lanka. He was down in Arizona doing

god knows what. I looked up at the Ottawa press gallery reception a few

months back, and there was the familiar face of Speaker Dowding. Now

he's off in Quebec City with a parliamentary group, his legislature

still not closed down in Victoria.

"One of the

cliché charges against socialists is that once in power they act like

children who've broken into the candy store. That's an overly cynical

view, but the NDP in Victoria, by its rather casual nature, tends to

encourage such a charge. I'm getting bored repeating it, but the good

works of this government are in danger of being completely obscured by

the excesses of its style and enthusiastic fumbling. Unless it curbs

its eager transcontinental boondoggles, the Barrett regime will become

known as Around the World in 40 Ways."

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. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:16 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada