1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2861 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Purchase of ferry MS Stena Danica. Hon. Mr.

Strachan — 2861

Routine proceedings

Petitions

Mr. Clerk's report on petition presented by Mr.

Fraser — 2862

Oral Questions

Inspection, purchase and modification of the Stena

Danica . Mr. Bennett — 2862

Proposed dam on Chemainus River. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 2863

Proposed dam on the Peace River. Mr. Phillips — 2864

Repainting of highway centre lines. Mr. Fraser — 2864

Number of housing units affected by construction

strike. Mr. Gibson — 2865

Agriculture courses in new community colleges. Mr.

Schroeder — 2865

Consultation with Westbank Indian band. Mr.

Bennett — 2865

Use of Coach Lines' drivers to pick up buses. Mr.

McClelland — 2865

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial

Development,

Trade and Commerce estimates.

On vote 125.

Mr. Chabot — 2865

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2866

Mr. Rolston — 2866

Mr. Phillips — 2868

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2869

Mr. Phillips — 2869

Mr. McGeer — 2870

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2871

Mr. McGeer — 2872

Mr. Wallace — 2872

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2874

Mr. Wallace — 2875

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2875

Mr. Smith — 2875

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2877

Mr. Smith — 2877

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2877

Mr. Phillips — 2879

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2882

Mr. Phillips — 2884

Mrs. Jordan — 2885

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2889

Mrs. Jordan — 2890

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2891

Mr. McClelland — 2891

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2892

Mr. McGeer — 2892

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2893

Mr. McGeer — 2894

Mr. Gibson — 2894

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2895

Mr. Gardom — 2895

On vote 128.

Mr. Chabot — 2897

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2898

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in

the galleries today 41 elementary school students from New

Denver, British Columbia, in company with their teacher, Mr.

John D'Arc Angelo, and Dot and Bill Finlay and Sheila Crane

from that community, who are accompanying the children. It's

not too often that Interior students have an opportunity to

journey to the House, so I'd ask the Members to give them a

very warm welcome.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission of the House to make a statement

regarding ferries.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House

that a large new ferry for the B.C. government fleet has been

purchased from a Swedish firm. The new vessel, the MS Stena

Danica , was required to help meet the crisis in Vancouver

Island–mainland transportation while three recently ordered

ships are being constructed in west coast yards. These new

ships cannot be in service before 1976, and it is apparent from

the growing traffic that an interim measure was necessary.

The new ferry should be in service during August. The

Swedish ship has been purchased at a cost of $13,875,000, plus

federal import duty and delivery costs from Göteborg to

Vancouver, boosting the government outlay to $17.7 million. She

will be modified to meet Canadian standards and the

requirements of the existing 23-ship fleet.

The Stena Danica will carry up to 170 cars while reserving a

lane for buses. She has a passenger capacity of 1,500 and

boasts a gross registered tonnage of 4,437 tons. She has a

speed of 21 knots with 9,600 horsepower twin-screw engines,

stabilizers and bow thruster. She has a deep sea hull and would

be suitable for any run on the coast, although her immediate

task will be to serve the lower mainland–Vancouver Island

routes.

It is estimated it would cost $20 million to build a similar

ship in Canada today.

The Stena Danica will be renamed in keeping with B.C.

Ferries' custom of each vessel honouring a centre of population

in the province or some local connotation, but no decision has

yet been made.

The ship was built in 1969 and has been employed in a route

between Sweden and Denmark.

She is to sail from Göteborg on or about May 11 and is

expected to arrive in Vancouver early in June. Until August she

will undergo modifications and crewing will be arranged.

Traffic on B.C. ferries on the Island-mainland routes has

increased in recent years at a rate of 9 per cent per annum. In

the year ending March 1973, the B.C. ferry fleet carried 7.6

million passengers and 2.8 million vehicles. The growth has

been predictable and constant but, unfortunately, no new

ferries have been built since 1965, which is the basis of the

present crisis.

I note that every vessel now in use which could be enlarged

has now been stretched. In order to cope with the added traffic

immediately, there was no alternative but to make this

purchase. She is comparable in capacity to the largest ships

now in service and is faster by about five knots.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter can rest until question

period if any one has any further questions. I don't think it's

a question of statements at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I understood it

was the usual practice to have the opposition reply. If you'd

like it….

MR. SPEAKER: I think that in situations that call for

discussion — just brief statements on party position on some

emergency, such as an earthquake or something — it's the usual

practice. But in this sort of thing, a Ministerial statement, I

think that if it leads to any questions, it could be raised in

question period. That's why I asked them to be held first.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I think it would be quite clear that in this case all

of question period will be taken up by questions on this one

subject. I just ask your guidance as to whether this really is

the purpose of question period — to be pre-empted, as it were,

by such a far-reaching and important announcement on this

particular subject. I would suggest that we've established the

custom that as long as leaders make statements and not ask

questions, this would preserve the better use of question

period, in my view.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that the

Speaker has to decide, as best he can sense the feeling of the

House, whether a particular subject has been rather overdone? I

have to really gauge it without knowing what the next question

may be. It's very difficult for the Speaker

[ Page 2862 ]

to do that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in asking

permission of the House to make this statement was that I felt

I should make this statement in the House rather than just

release it outside. I felt I should make the statement in here

first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the

Minister on a good statement which was factual and informative?

I may say, however, that the whole subject of whether there

will be opposition replies to Ministerial statements is the

type of thing that perhaps should be examined by the committee,

that you yourself are heading, of all party leaders.

Many of the rules of this House need consideration, not just

specific ones as has been done by yesterday's motion. I trust

that this type of thing — Ministerial statements, what they

should contain, how long they should be, what sort of reply an

opposition party should give and what rules should be on that

reply — should be studied by your committee in a full range of

re-examination of the procedures of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I just wanted to add that that matter is under

consideration, of course, but there's only so much that can be

done at one time in examining the rules and reform of the

rules. But it certainly is on the agenda. The committee I

appointed in the beginning has reported on that subject to some

extent — on Ministerial statements as a right rather than by

leave of the House. But at the moment I don't think that

Ministerial statements should evoke speeches, certainly not of a taxing

nature or of a questioning nature when we have

question period following immediately afterwards.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table at this time the

annual reports of the Water Resources Service and the Land Service, if

I may.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): What year?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the most recent one.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

Reading and receiving petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe there's a statement by the Clerks on

the petition.

DEPUTY CLERK: Report: office of the Clerks, May 4, 1974, in

the matter of the petition presented to the House, May 6, 1974, by the

Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser).

Standing order 73(4) provides that: "Every Member

presenting a petition shall endorse his name thereon." and

standing order 73(5) provides inter alia that: "…the

signatures of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on

the sheet containing the prayer of the petition."

The said petition contains neither the endorsement of the

Member, nor the signatures of at least three petitioners

thereon, and accordingly does not comply with standing

orders.

All of which is respectfully submitted, I.M. Horne, Clerk of

the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't support it yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Oral questions.

INSPECTION,

PURCHASE AND MODIFICATION

OF THE STENA DANICA

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation

and Communications in regard to the announcement he just made

on the purchase of the vessel Stena Danica . I would like to

know what firm carried out the inspection, what agents made the

purchase on behalf of the government, and if any modifications

or repairs are going to be required when the vessel is landed

in British Columbia before it's put on regularly scheduled

service.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We flew a member of the Canadian

Steamship Inspection Service to Göteborg to inspect the vessel.

Minor modification to the value of $.25 million will be

required. This will include the sponsons to make it fit into

the existing docking facilities.

What was the other question?

MR. BENNETT: I asked if there was an agent involved in the

purchase.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it was direct purchase negotiation

between ferry management and the owners of the ship itself,

consummated in Victoria last Friday night at 5 o'clock.

[ Page 2863 ]

MR. BENNETT: I see.

MR. WALLACE: May I ask the Minister of Transportation and

Communications, were negotiations underway to purchase this

ship during the budget debate in this House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, not during the budget debate. We have

been looking for ships, I would say, for a couple of months,

but to the best of my recollection we were still looking then.

There were no negotiations on at that time. We were looking for

ships, though.

MR. WALLACE: When was the first contact made with the

Swedish authorities to inspect or otherwise negotiate on the

ship? Could the Minister give us the debate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first report I have is April 16. The

first report.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm interested in knowing how

we looked for ships. Did we advertise? Were there any tenders

put out? Where did we look? We're going to spend $17 or $18

million on this ship compared to $35 million which we have in

our special fund for two ships. How did we go about buying this

$17 million vessel?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I want to tell you it's not easy to

find an adequate ferry that is for sale. We went looking for

them. There's a market, you know — there are ships' agents and

all the rest of it. The Swedes evidently have a system of

shipbuilding, especially of ferries, where every ferry is a

saleable commodity; they always have some other on line. It's

rather an enterprising procedure they have.

We found when we first started out that it was a seller's

market. There were only two possibilities, and because we would

not make an overnight decision on the other one, it went out to

tender, and these were the only two.

It's a very difficult thing to find ferries that are

suitable. We looked in the United States; we looked elsewhere

in Canada, and in Australia. We investigated all over the place,

and it's a very difficult thing to find. If you advertise with

tenders, you will get people writing to you with ships that you

wouldn't want within 100 miles of the coast. I've had letters

such as that.

MR. McCLELLAND: You can reject them, can't you?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No….

MR. McCLELLAND: You can reject those ships that you don't

want. That's pretty easy to do.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And we did that.

PROPOSED DAM ON

CHEMAINUS RIVER

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources: on the weekend the Minister complained that

the cabinet had okayed a dam on the Chemainus River without

ever consulting him. May I ask the Minister what procedures…?

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You were unaware of the motion and of the

dam, I understand, Mr. Minister, but I'll redirect my question

to you. In the light of your total lack of knowledge on

Saturday of a dam to be constructed on the Chemainus River, and

your lack of knowledge of the resolution of the Victoria Fish

and Game Association on this particular proposal, may I ask

what steps you have taken, Mr. Minister, to make sure that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources keeps you

informed on dams on streams which involve steelhead, Coho and

salmon production?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I

was aware of the proposed Chemainus dam some months ago, Mr.

Member, and indicated that at the Wildlife Federation. A

cabinet committee was formed and the chairman of that committee

was the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). Their

findings were that there was no alternate water supplies

available to the district of North Cowichan, and I am

consulting further with the chairman of that committee. It is

not procedural that this committee hearing the appeal report

back to cabinet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask as a supplementary question

whether or not the Minister was misquoted when he said, "No

comment right now. Contact me next week after I've had a chance

to look into this. The government meets Monday, do you get the

message?" which came out in the newspaper over the headline:

"Radford Ignorant of Plan"?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, I said that there were

communication problems and that I would look into it. I didn't

say that I was unaware of the situation.

[ Page 2864 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): To the Hon. Minister. In

the light of the Hon. Minister's statements today that he was

aware that this application was in, I would ask him why the

Fish and Wildlife Branch was not represented at the hearing by

counsel and found themselves in a position where they were

presenting a very weak case as opposed to a strong case that

was being presented by the Water Rights Branch.

My second question is: in light of the fact that you suggest

that the committee found there was no alternate water supply,

did the applicants present a detailed study of other

alternates, both on the basis of supply and economics? I refer

specifically to the use of the Cowichan River as a means of

water supply, or the use of ground water.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Madam Member, I said that I was aware of

the proposal of the dam. As to your other question about what

went on at the hearings, I would suggest that you direct your

question to the chairman of that committee. Our Fish and

Wildlife Branch did have some opposition to the dam proposal,

but as to all of the discussion at that hearing, you'll have to

direct your question to the chairman of that committee.

MRS. JORDAN: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I will

redirect my questions at the proper time, but I would ask the

Minister if he's not aware that the general consensus of

opinion is that a proposal culminates in marriage, and that in

fact this proposal was not idly put forth and that it was

liable to be acted on, and why you didn't take action.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the original Minister who I

wish to question what steps he is taking to make sure he or the

Minister of Health, who apparently chaired this committee, what

steps he is taking to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife

Branch and the B.C. Wildlife Federation are advised of such

hearings so that the statement "They were not even advised of

the hearing" does not continue to appear in the newspaper when

apparently there was communication between the various

branches?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker,

that representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Branch were at

the cabinet committee hearing, so there was in fact

representation from that part of the Hon. Minister's

department. There's certainly discussion being carried on

between myself and my colleagues regarding the communication

question.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of

Transportation and Communications: on the basis of a press report

quoting the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) speaking in Prince

Rupert, has the Minister responsible for British Columbia ferries

received the recommendation or suggestion based on a policy of

"Canadians first" using British Columbia ferry vessels in the near

future?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have heard it suggested in a number of

places, but it's not my intention to pursue that particular

procedure. I think it would be very difficult.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The report indicates

that the "Canadians first" policy on B.C. ferry vessels is

being considered by the government. This quotes the Minister of

Highways. Does the Minister of Transportation and Communication

reject the fact that it is likely to become policy? Is that to

be understood?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can ask questions about

future policies of the government in this matter.

PROPOSED DAM ON

THE PEACE RIVER

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct

just a little question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

director of British Columbia Hydro. In view of the fact, Mr.

Minister, that you are going to build yet another dam on the

mighty Peace River and take more power out of that great place,

have you got together with your other director, the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), to

reach a decision as to whether or not you will assist those

great people in Lone Prairie to get their hydro line?

(Laughter.)

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We

haven't come to a decision yet, but we are still dealing with

it. We want to see the people of Lone Prairie with lights.

REPAINTING OF

HIGHWAY CENTRE LINES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question for the Minister of

Highways. We have a high traffic hazard situation in this

province right now on all the arterial highways. The centre

lines are worn out and there is no sign of them being replaced.

This is a dangerous situation. My question is: when are you

going to get somebody in your department to buy some paint and

put these lines back?

[ Page 2865 ]

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): We're looking into

that, Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS AFFECTED

BY CONSTRUCTION STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): One of the

serious potential effects of the construction strike is the

impact on badly needed housing in British Columbia,

particularly multiple-family housing. Yesterday I asked the

Minister of Housing how many such units are being affected and

he took it as notice. I hope he has the information today.

MR. SPEAKER: I think your proper course is to wait until the

Minister comes back to the House or to nudge him occasionally,

but not the next day.

AGRICULTURE COURSES

IN NEW COMMUNITY COLLEGES

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): For the Minister of

Education. On what basis will the curriculum be established for

the new valley college, and how can we ensure that a faculty of

agriculture will be included?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): It will be up to

the new college council to make recommendations on the matter

of curriculum. I am sure that if you are particularly

interested in the matter of the agricultural college you should

have an opportunity to so express it to the council as the

Member representing part of the area.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm delighted with the fact that the Minister

appears receptive to an agricultural college in the lower

Fraser Valley, and one is considered for the North Okanagan.

Who is going to make the final decision as to where it will

be?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I at no time said I was receptive to any

specific area. I know there is a need for some form of

agricultural training. I think you are aware that the

Agriculture department and the Education department have been

working on a report on this, which I would be very pleased to

send to the Members interested.

CONSULTATION WITH

WESTBANK INDIAN BAND

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Human Resources. Chief Noll

Derrikson of the Indian band council at Westbank, in discussion, was of

the opinion that no Indian cut-off lands would be either leased or

disposed of without full consultation with the Indian people. Currently

there is construction on the cut-off lands at Westbank.

Could the Minister advise whether or not such consultation

took place with the Westbank Indian band, and, further, was the

ground rent for the site location for a senior citizens'

project agreed to by the band council?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): In respect to

this particular piece of cut-off land, that land was made

available through an order-in-council on September 11, 1972.

The previous government did that. I have referred the matter to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) who, as you know, was out of town last week. We will

be discussing it. I have been in touch with the band about

that.

MR. BENNETT: It may have been granted in 1972, but were

discussions initiated with the Indian band? I understand the

rent has been set and 50 per cent of the rental may accrue to

them. If they weren't consulted, why not?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, I'll take that

part of the question as notice and discuss it with my

colleague.

USE OF COACH LINES' DRIVERS

TO PICK UP BUSES

MR. McCLELLAND: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could

the Minister tell us whether or not Vancouver Island Coach

Lines' drivers are being used to go back to Saskatchewan and

Manitoba to pick up used buses or new buses? If so, on what

basis of contract? Hourly, or how are they being paid?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I will have to take that as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE

(continued)

On vote 125: Minister's office, $75,976.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): We seem to get this

Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) in bits and pieces, and I find it

difficult to maintain my train of thought. We ask questions, and

the questions are

[ Page 2866 ]

never answered. The vote is pulled back, and sometimes we

might appear repetitious if we ask the question again. However,

I am not one to repeat questions very frequently in the

Legislature.

But I do want to pursue one matter that the Minister talked

about — steel and this junket to Japan. In questioning him the

other day or the other week, whenever his estimates were up for

the second go around, he suggested to me that the consumption

of steel in British Columbia is in the 300,000 to 400,000

tons-per-year capacity. Also, he indicated that 75 per cent of

the steel consumed in British Columbia comes from Japan.

I did a little quick arithmetic at the time, but they pulled

the vote back so I didn't have the opportunity to give you the

benefit of my mathematics. But supposing the consumption of

steel in British Columbia is the higher figure of 400,000 tons

per year; well, 75 per cent of 400,000 tons is 300,000. Now,

the Minister tells us that he is going to be receiving a 22 per

cent increase in the amount of steel we presently receive from

Japan. Then he also says, beyond the 22 per cent, that we are

going to receive 125,000 tons per year. Well, 22 per cent of

300,000 is 66,000 tons, not 125,000 tons.

So I wonder where you have made your mistake in your

mathematics, Mr. Minister, on the question of steel.

Also, we've seen an indication that Western Canada Steel

proposes a substantial expansion of their present production of

steel in British Columbia. They are going to expand to 200,000

tons per year, which would be approximately 50 per cent of the

requirements for steel in British Columbia as indicated by the

Minister last week when he was discussing his estimates.

In view of the government's anxiety to establish a steel

mill, could the Minister tell the House why the expansion plans

of Western Canada Steel have been totally ignored by the

government? Is it only a question of the government wanting to

be in the business of manufacturing steel, or are they going to

lend encouragement to a private industry which is prepared to

expand a steel plant in the province?

I wonder if the Minister at any time has had any

consultation with Western Canada Steel regarding their proposed

expansion? Have they consulted you?

AN HON. MEMBER: We dealt with that.

MR. CHABOT: Did we? All it involved the other night, Mr.

Minister, was the close-off of your estimates. I thought it was

extremely amusing but not very informative. If you suggest that

we have gone through this business of Western Canada Steel, I

won't pursue it any further.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce): It's in Hansard .

MR. CHABOT: But what day? Are the Blues available?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia

River has the floor. I would ask other Members not to speak

from their seats.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have other questions,

but I would just like the Minister to clarify at this time just

what 22 per cent really represents as far as the import of

steel from Japan is concerned. If we do get 75 per cent of our

imports, what are we importing from Japan? It would appear we

are importing substantially more than the Minister suggests is

being consumed in this province. I would just like that one

point clarified.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, just briefly. We did cover the Western

Canada Steel situation. I indicated my officials and Michael

Hobbs of Western Canada Steel and his officials had

conversations earlier in the year about their expansion plans.

We encouraged them; we look forward to them; we asked them

about their expansion plans last fall when there was a real

possibility that the construction industry would have been shut

down because of the lack of reinforcement bar and other shapes

for construction.

With respect to your figures, Mr. Member, I'm sorry if I

said 300,000 or 400,000 tons. It is somewhat more. I'm sorry if

I said that because that's misleading.

There's no definite figures on usage overall, because some

of it's coming up from the States as well. But we estimate that

between 500,000 and 60,000, maybe even as high as 700,000, tons

per annum are required by British Columbia steel users — 22 per

cent of that makes it a considerably higher figure. The steel

ship from Japan does constitute approximately 65 or 75 per

cent, depending on how definite our total figure is.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I

have a great deal of confidence in you as the Minister and I

know that things are going to go ahead, but I've got to admit a

bit of a frustration as an MLA.

I made a lot of speeches in this House about the fact that

many ridings, and not just Dewdney, are more and more bedrooms

to large urban areas. Of course, this means a lot of

transportation. This means more and more capital laid out in

highway and bridges. This also means the fracturing of the

[ Page 2867 ]

community. This means that the father is away for

very, very

long hours. This is stressful.

Nearly a decade ago a lawyer, Bill Lane, now chairman of the

Lands Commission, said that in Richmond alone the subsidy,

tax-wise, was nearly $250. It was up to at least $250 as a

deficit problem, tax-wise, to the municipality. In other words,

this had to be met by institutional and by industrial taxation.

In Maple Ridge the tax base, industry-wise, is barely 14 per

cent. It's not even that in Mission.

What I'm trying to say to you is that I think that there

could be a less frustrating experience for MLAs, such as

myself, who have really tried. We have spent hours and hours

and hours, met with the Land Commission, met with the people in

your department, met with the respective industrial development

committees such as, in my case, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows as

well as the Mission committee, chambers of commerce, the SPEC

groups, the IWA and any power structure we can think of to try

to establish planned industrial parks in these bedroom ridings.

It is a frustration. We have had options' on land in Pitt

Meadows and in Maple Ridge — this is actually on the border of

both communities.

I can tell you precisely what we thought the cost would be.

We had very attractive options on 111 acres. The options have

run out. We renewed the options. We've had to let them go

again. This, of course, was costing money to the municipality

of Maple Ridge. We came through with very precise accounting on

what it would cost to service this area, which is

agriculturally marginal land — it's now under the agricultural

land reserve. To service these 111 acres we thought we had some

pretty precise figures which were less than $28,000 an acre,

which is for the purchasing, for flood-proofing — which we are

told would cost us $2,000 per foot per acre — plus water, plus

sewer, plus highway and kind of basic electrification. It has

really been a frustrating experience.

As I say, we have had to let those options go. There is some

hope. The municipality, the planning people, senior staff and

the alderman and mayor in Maple Ridge are still hoping

something could be assembled.

I want to assure you that, of course, we've looked at other

alternative pieces of property. They're even more expensive. If

you go to the highland property you're talking probably $30,000

to $35,000 to basic industrial land — land which is not,

proximity-wise, nearly as good as the land that we're talking

about. We're talking about land that's on the Fraser River,

that's next to the CPR, it's next to the Lougheed Highway and

it's within grasp of basic servicing.

I am just explaining my frustration that it's now or it's never.

Land, as you know, is going really out of sight — industrial and other

land. It's not that we have alternatives to look at a decade from now

in Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and in Mission. It's got to be now and so

I just hope for some support from you on this.

Admittedly the costs, of course, are going above $28,000 an

acre now. As I talk, I'm sure they're going up. The property in

Mission is probably at least as attractive on each side of the

north side of the river beside Mission Bridge — land which is

already zoned industrial and has been for eight years now,

according to the lower mainland regional plan, and land which

is jointly owned by Highways, the District of Mission and by a

private chap. So I'm hoping that some of your officers can get

out there, give us some encouragement, and at least comment,

feasibility-wise, where maybe the municipalities which now,

according to legislation passed last year, at least can go into

business for themselves. If you can't in partnership with them,

at least they can be masters of their own house as far as

creating an industrial climate.

I don't want to be cynical, but quite frankly I think this

is an awful more important than sending people down to the

South Pacific trading rim to sell kitchen cabinets, which are

already well subscribed, which in doing a bit of research I

gather have a pretty good market right now. I read your press

releases, and again I'm happy with what you're doing, but

surely land couldn't be more elementary in establishing an

industrial base.

I believe that our caucus is committed to moving some of the

industry out of False Creek and out of some of the more

cluttered industrial areas of Vancouver now, that we are

committed to having neat packages throughout the lower

mainland, and certainly throughout this province. Tilbury is

going to go ahead. Tilbury is fine for people who live in

Delta, who live in North Surrey, some who live in Richmond, but

it's certainly no good to people who would have to commute

great distances at great expense and, I would say, at great

waste to work at places like Tilbury Island. So it's my hope

that at least you can encourage us, give us direction and

comment, feasibility-wise, on whether municipalities should go

off on their own.

I remind you, of course, that municipalities are very tight

financially. They really don't have the borrowing capacity that

you have. I would like to see that you go beyond that $15

million that you've been given cabinet authority for as far as

expenditure for industrial development. I think we should

underwrite at least to the $25 million that the House

authorized a year ago because, as I say, it might take $100

million. We need a great deal of money to get going.

I also want to ask the Minister: what are your

[ Page 2868 ]

expectations for the turn-over of money? Again, I

wonder if

there is confusion by the Members. Are you expecting to turn

money over every three or four years? The private sector I

don't think has that expectation, and I can't see where you

should have that expectation. You just aren't going to turn

over investments of, let's say, $30,000 per acre times 100

acres. You're not going to turn that money over every two or

three years. It might take a decade and I just expected that.

If you can look at the municipality of Richmond as a prototype,

I gather that it was a decade ago that they went to their

proposal. They have now got their money out of it, but that

took a decade. Right now, of course, Mr. Chairman, Richmond as

a municipality has already made about $4 million profit. They

still have well over 1,000 acres still to go and that's kind of

an exciting thing for other municipalities to look to.

Could you comment on the whole problem of creating

industrial workers, of developing both sexes? I gather we are

desperately short for trained industrial workers. We hear this

figure of 20,000 jobs per day in the metro Vancouver area not

being filled. I was pretty saddened to see people in the

logging industry, for instance in my riding, just beside

themselves in trying to find trained people especially in the

machining and mill righting and welding sector.

The Province was accurate

in the comments in the

business

section about a month ago lamenting this fact, putting

a lot of the blame on the industries that really haven't done

the recruiting. Of course, if they do recruiting one company

might be very conscientious in recruiting developing skills,

industrial skills, and yet the other firms which don't have the

money, don't lay out the money, benefit by the mobility of

these people from one company to another.

I just wonder if you could comment on that. Do you think you

have some kind of assessment? How close is the relationship of

these primary industries to the vocational schools where we're

trying to develop the skills? How immediate is the relationship

between the academic, learning situation in a trade school, or

in a regional college, to the on-site industrial situation? If

we don't have those trained people — it's like building ships.

You don't build ships without shipwrights and welders and

machinists.

I am going to sit down, but again I've got to confess the

frustration in my own experience in setting up industrial

parks.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Just a few short

comments. I would like to get back to this trip to Japan which we've

discussed on several occasions. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that I

predicted that the Premier would be out of the province when finally

the Minister's estimates went through, because the Premier seems to be

embarrassed with his Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce. So now that the Premier is away and won't be embarrassed we

can get on with getting the Minister's estimates passed.

Now I would like to ask the Minister of Industrial

Development whether he had prepared before he went to Japan a

complete list of steel requirements from the various users of

steel from Japan. I have reason to believe that he was not

prepared at all when he went to Japan, that he didn't really

know how much steel was required by various users in British

Columbia.

Not only did he not know what various users were having a

shortage, he didn't know what types of steel there were

shortages of. He was ill-prepared. This deal that he made

acquiring steel from Japan was just a last-minute effort as he

was leaving Japan because he had accomplished absolutely

nothing else, and he couldn't come back empty-handed.

If I am wrong, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to stand in his

place and tell me I'm wrong. I would also like him to tell me

what else he did in Japan besides getting the steel situation

straightened out.

As I said in this House before, Mr. Chairman, this steel

situation could have been settled with a phone call. We supply

them with their coking coal, and they need it, and we need some

of their steel. A phone call would have done this. I don't

think any trip to Japan was necessary, because the Minister

didn't even have the details with him.

The press release issued by the Premier's office, who….

Maybe he's the real Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, well, maybe it's prepared by Twiggy, but

it emanates from the Premier's Office, not from the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. It says:

"In addition, the industry will undertake to alleviate

the specific shortages validated by the B.C. government. Lauk said his

department will begin immediately to produce a breakdown of specific

steel shortages."

This is dated May 3 on the return from the trip. He's going

to file a report; he's going to break down the specific steel

shortages.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, he didn't even know what the

steel shortages were in the various industries before he went

to Japan to negotiate. Now what kind of a businessman is that,

I ask you,

[ Page 2869 ]

Mr. Chairman? He wouldn't go to court without

preparing his

case, but he went to Japan without knowing the specific

shortages, because as of May 3 his department…and I will

read it again into the record:

"Lauk said his department will begin immediately to

produce a breakdown of specific steel shortages."

He's going to begin now, after returning from Japan and

having it blasted all over the papers about what a fantastic

deal he had made to get steel from Japan — and the Minister

didn't even know what the shortages were. He is just now going

to compile a list. This, Mr. Chairman, is the man who is going

to be the nerve centre — the nervous centre, I think it is — of

industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I find it very difficult to put my faith in this Minister

and his policies. I don't want the people of this great

province of ours, who paid for that great trip to Japan, to be

misled. I ask the Minister to explain to me how he can make

deals with specific companies in Japan to supply our steel

shortages when he didn't even know what they were.

Now I would like the Minister to explain.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) has a great facility of asking the same question

several times. I am just wondering whether he doesn't

completely understand the question or whether he wants the

other people to understand it clearly.

It is not possible, Mr. Member, to go with specific

shortages to Japan and discuss specific shortages. The word

specific is in that press release you referred to. We did have

a breakdown of those steel users polled as to what the

shortages were from time to time, because every day or every

week or every month they change. That is the short answer to

that question which took you about 20 minutes to ask.

With respect to the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), I

appreciate the particular problems of individual Members

travelling from suburban areas to areas where industrial work

is available, and that this does work a hardship. And the

length of time does become longer and longer the farther out

you live, and so on, of course. The question of where to locate

industrial parks is a kind of priority the board of directors

of the development corporation is presently coping with.

Now not every community, of course, can be assisted through

the agency of the development corporation, because if that were

to occur, the regional areas that many Members in this House

have an interest in would want some of the pie and want some of

the investment from the development corporation.

Now with respect to your area, Mr. Member, I have asked for

a report from the development corporation; I understand that an

officer was out there. There was also some communication with

the Land Commission with respect to their views about the land

use in that area. Those discussions are occurring. I will have

a report for you and I will provide you with that report.

I don't agree with the Hon. Member, Mr. Chairman, when he

says, on kitchen cabinets, that these industrial land-banking

schemes are more important than trade missions involving

various products produced in British Columbia. We have probably

the finest cabinets in all of the world here in British

Columbia. We should develop a furniture-manufacturing base. We

should develop a number of these areas, and I think the way to

develop them is to send the actual manufacturers on trade

missions, assisted by the government, and expanding their

markets and their knowledge and their exchange of

information.

Otherwise, you stultify, petrify, the industry. They become

parochial and they eventually dry up. I think that that

shouldn't be allowed to happen. That is why we have trade

missions. I feel that they are very important.

The skilled worker situation: I understand that the

Ministers of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) are consulting on that. Perhaps later on you can ask the

Minister of Labour a question on that. With respect to my

department, we have skilled development programmes in the

making as part of our current development studies, but

primarily we regard it as the responsibility of the other two

Ministries that I have just mentioned.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly it's a supplementary, because the

Minister said that it took me a long time to ask a question — which he

still didn't answer. I realize that there are specific

requirements by steel users from time to time. But from the

date of this press release, when you say you are going to

prepare a list of specific shortages, to the time you left to

go to Japan wasn't over a space of 19 days. And anyone who is

planning to build a building, or is using steel, certainly

plans more than 19 days ahead. So don't give me that

gobbledegook!

The facts are that he didn't do his homework before he went

to Japan. He didn't know what the requirements of this province

were before he went to Japan. And when those steel industry

people, who were good citizens then, Mr. Chairman, asked him

what the specific requirements were, he couldn't answer — after

spending $30,000 or $40,000 of the taxpayers' money.

He wasn't prepared. That's the whole answer, Mr. Chairman.

That is what I want brought out here this afternoon.

[ Page 2870 ]

What are these businessmen in Japan, these steel producers,

going to think of a Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce who goes so ill-prepared? I will tell you. It is

as I put it in the first instance, Mr. Chairman. This was just

sort of a last-ditch effort to come home so that he wouldn't

have his hands completely empty. That's all he did accomplish

in Japan and, as I have said before, it could have been

accomplished with a phone call.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

would like to ask the Minister a few questions about his trip

to Japan, too.

It concerns any commitments that the Minister may have made

to NKK, because reports coming out of Japan have it that the

Minister has chosen that firm to build steel plants in British

Columbia. I would like to know whether the Minister has made

any commitments, formal or informal, to the NKK Company with

regard to building a steel plant.

Specifically, has any contract been entered into? If no

contract has been entered into, has the Minister discussed with

that firm the feasibility of their building a steel plant in

British Columbia?

If they aren't even at the stage of feasibility, has the

Minister led them to believe that if a steel plant were to be

built in British Columbia by the Japanese, they would be the

ones the provincial government would enter into discussions

with?

If the answer to all of these question is no, then I would

like to ask the Minister if he can account for how press

reports came out of Japan suggesting that the NKK firm had been

chosen….

HON. MR. LAUK: What ones are you talking about, Pat?

MR. McGEER: Well, there have been a number of press reports,

as the Minister knows. He is followed around by people….

HON. MR. LAUK: Be fair….

MR. McGEER: Well, there was one just last night in The

Vancouver Sun …

HON. MR. LAUK: Have you got it with you?

MR. McGEER: …by M.N. Tsuji, the Tokyo correspondent for

the afternoon press. Mr. Tsuji reports to British Columbians

regarding the activities of some of the firms which, we gather,

were the sponsors and hosts of the British Columbia government

in their travels abroad.

We do know there was a complaint from the Canadian embassy to the

Barrett government regarding their trip to Japan. On the surface one

might suspect that this was just the usual hassling and name calling

that's so common between B.C. and the federal government. But it

appears as though underneath it all was a more serious warning to the

Barrett government. For example, an official of the Mitsubishi Corp.

accompanied the Barrett government from the time they left the

parliament buildings here in Victoria, or at least at some point before

they arrived at the airport, on their airplane trip to Japan.

Other companies that were involved in entertaining the

British Columbia government officials, buying them dinners,

arranging their schedules and hosting them were the giant firms

that are called the new Zaibatsu or financial cliques — organizations

such as Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Marubeni, C. Itoh and

Sumitomo. These firms are not in very high regard in Japan.

They've been taken before the Japanese parliament, accused of

price fixing, tax evasion, making excess profits, engaging in

illegal lumber transactions, controlling of markets, and a

number of other anti-social and anti-democratic activities that

would be the embarrassment of any government that dealt with

them. Yet these were the people who, over the Canadian

government embassy, arranged to be the hosts and entertainers

for the British Columbia government on their supposedly

official visit to Japan.

The cabinet Ministers of British Columbia have a hard enough

time dealing with executives here in British Columbia when

their international dealings are completely above board. We'll

naturally be discussing with the Minister of Lands and Forests

(Hon. R.A. Williams), when his estimates come up, some of the

problems he has run into when he begins wheeling and dealing on

an international scale. It's clear that the people of British

Columbia, and specifically the workers at Ocean Falls, are

being skinned by a New York broker. That's one example where we

now have hard evidence of the naivety of cabinet Ministers in

the international business world and hard evidence of a double

standard: one standard when you're dealing with business within

British Columbia and another when you're dealing with

international business.

The Minister's specific responsibility is that of industrial

development, trade and commerce. Approximately half of our

factory production in British Columbia is sold on international

markets. Japan is our third largest trading partner.

I don't think it was proper for the British Columbia

government to have been under control or at least be hosted by

these giant trading firms that are under such a shadow within

Japan itself. I think the Premier and the Minister of

Industrial Development should have shown better judgment than

to have been accompanied by an official of the Mitsubishi

Corporation. I don't think they should

[ Page 2871 ]

have been entertained and wooed and had money spent

on them

by any of these giant Japanese corporations. I think any

dealings that should have gone on between Japanese firms and

the Government of British Columbia should have been done on the

most careful protocol basis through the Canadian embassy.

That's a matter of judgment and good sense.

We don't know what kinds of deals were entered into. We do

know that in another portfolio, namely Lands and Forests, the

government is in trouble as a result of what they've done. All

we have here is a suggestion in a news report that one Japanese

company, NKK, has been chosen to build a steel plant in B.C.,

and vague and rather inexact statements from the Minister as to

what arrangements he has made to purchase steel from the

Japanese to make up for shortages that our manufacturers here

are now experiencing.

We need to know through whom those purchases are being made

and what the delivery price is going to be. I think we need to

know precisely what the arrangements are now and will be in the

future between the Government of British Columbia and the giant

trading firms of Japan. I wonder if the Minister could give us

some explanations.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I cannot describe in any other

way that mindless, libellous attack on Japanese corporations as

nothing more than the most shameful performance by that Member

I've seen since I've been sitting in this House.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shameful.

HON. MR. LAUK: The business people of this province and of

this country and the very embassy of which he speaks are trying

very hard to bridge a gap that has existed between this country

and the Japanese since World War II, and he's conjuring it up

again. It's the most shameful demonstration I've seen from a

Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: How about the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) and his vicious attack?

HON' MR. LAUK: The Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) said there was a junket and that we didn't do

anything in Japan. The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) said there was a sinister plot and an intrigue,

and we signed all kinds of secret pacts. What a pile of

nonsense! Why don't you get together and do something together

for a change? I'm beginning to think the unified party is a

good idea; maybe we'll get some sensible opposition.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: With respect to the forms of entertainment

and the invitations and the activity of myself and the Premier

and our party, it was taken on the advice of the embassy

officials, whose advice I accept, not the First Member for

Vancouver Point Grey. We had a disagreement with respect to how

it would be handled in a technical way only. I think you should

check out your facts, Mr. Member, before standing up and

mouthing off and getting everything wrong. Of course, it's too

much to ask for you to change now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Is the press

story wrong?

HON. MR. LAUK: The press story is wrong. I know that this

government has not chosen NKK to build a steel mill in this

province. We have discussed feasibility of steel production in

this province with NKK and other steel producers in Japan.

In addition, there's a special consultant to my department

travelling on many matters in Europe, and I have asked him to

call upon the Austrian, German and British steel producers.

I've asked him to make contact and to discuss — initially in

some cases and to follow up in other cases — the feasibility of

steel production within this province. His name is Clifford

Sawyer, special consultant to my department over the past

several months.

Now with respect to the attack by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) — a reprehensible attack — if

we were to refuse invitations from various trading

corporations, that, in our society as well as in others, is

considered bad manners. I will remind you of cabinet Ministers

and MLAs in the opposition alike who I have seen attend dinners

thrown by private enterprise corporations in the Empress Hotel

without any loss to their dignity or purity; and I don't think

that we would have either.

They were polite, they were gracious and, during the social

occasions, I can assure you that no member of those

corporations discussed business with me, because it wasn't

done.

Now the Member chose to attack Ocean Falls, because I

suppose he has to catch Air West at 4 o'clock and he hasn't got

time to wait for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources' (Hon. Mr. Williams') estimates. Off he goes flying

his aircraft across the water again — skipping and jumping over

the islands back to Vancouver–Point Grey….

MR. McGEER: I'll be here.

Interjections.

[ Page 2872 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll be sitting down in a moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that Members on

both sides, particularly the Minister, keep their remarks

relevant to the vote before us.

HON. MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to see

your renewed interest in order in the estimates this

afternoon.

With respect to the question asked by the first Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey…. He did ask a specific question: "How

will the purchases of the extra supplies of steel be made?" I

say through the normal and existing commercial channels that

already supply steel to steel users here from Japan. We have

not in any way made a choice or preference to Mitsubishi or C.

Itoh or any trading corporation. That was understood when we

landed in Japan. It was understood when we left and it's

understood on this day.

MR. McGEER: I don't want to hold the House up. But I would

like to read for the Minister a brief quotation regarding these

firms which he stoutly defended. I'm quoting from Mr. Tsuji who

lives in Japan and therefore is familiar with what's going on

day to day.

"Last February the presidents of seven of the nation's

largest trading companies" — and they are the ones I named — "were

subpoenaed to appear as witnesses at a Diet committee."

That's the equivalent of our federal House of Parliament. "They

were grilled on the subject of excess oil profits, illegal

lumber transactions, speculative land dealings, tax evasion and

controlling of markets involving important commodities such as

rice, wool, silk, soy beans, paper, detergents, foodstuffs and

a wide range of imported goods. Most have admitted their

guilt…promised to give back excess profits…vowed to quit

anti-social behaviour and try patching up their public

image."

So I'm not accusing them of anything that hasn't been

brought out in public testimony before the Japanese government,

and admitted to by the firms concerned.

I certainly wouldn't have raised the subject, Mr. Chairman, had it

not been the occasion of a warning from the Canadian Embassy in Japan,

who is familiar with what's going on and would have been the correct

one to arrange protocol visits for the provincial government and

certainly would have helped the Minister and the Premier to avoid the

kind of embarrassment which I suggest they have encountered as a result

of their naivety and their willingness to accept one set of standards

outside of the province which suits their convenience — standards which

they would not dare accept from within the province.

I hope the Minister is correct that he has made no

commitments to a Japanese steel firm to build such a firm in

British Columbia. I said in the debate the other night that I

was against this sort of thing. I think it would be a mistake

because of the different way that the Japanese go about

industrial development as compared with ourselves.

Having said that, I want to also say that I have the

greatest admiration for the Japanese people. They are superb

technicians, the world's hardest working people and second to

none in intelligence and technological innovation. We can learn

a great deal from them.

Beware, is all I say, Mr. Chairman. Beware! The government

has already got itself into enough trouble in international

trading. I hope that they're not going to repeat the style of

visit that they had very recently in Japan.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to change the topic

just a little bit, and I'll try to be brief. When I spoke

earlier in this debate, I touched on the whole question of

proper port facilities for British Columbia. The Minister was

rather general in his comments.

I tried to point out the very obvious disadvantages of the

present port of Vancouver at a time when the demands on the

facilities of the port are ever-increasing and when it is

clearly on record that we are losing to Seattle, which

apparently can more readily deal with containerization. I don't

want to get specifically on to that.

I want to talk about the chaotic situation which apparently

exists regarding the port of Vancouver. Now I think that the

facts and figures are obvious in many places to determine that

the port of Vancouver is reaching a point where it really

cannot continue to meet the increasing demand, and that what we

really need is some new, large, integrated port facility

actually to replace in the course of the next several years the

port of Vancouver.

But more important is the unbelievable chaos which

apparently exists in the administration of the port of

Vancouver. How can we ever hope as a province to deal with the

increasing demand for the shipment of ore and grain and just

about every other product from the Interior and from the

western provinces when we can't even run the port we have at

the size it is and with the facilities it has?

I notice that Mr. Paddy Neale, the Vancouver East MP, had

raised the matter at the federal level and had asked the

federal government to produce copies of contracts between the

National Harbours

[ Page 2873 ]

Board and three stevedoring firms to reveal the

extent of

what he called "the rip-off being made by the companies at the

expense of Vancouver."

According to Mr. Neale there had been — and I quote his

phrase — "a shady deal between Rathie and the companies

resulting in Vancouver losing $494,620 in tax revenue in 1974."

He further charged that "Rathie arbitrarily, and without

consultation with the City of Vancouver, cancelled contracts in

force up to October 31 last year between the National Harbours

Board and the three firms."

It's no real help, I don't think, to learn that Mr. Rathie

is going to appear before the transport committee of the

federal House. With a federal election in the offing I don't

suppose that event will ever take place anyway.

At any rate, that is the kind of comment that was made and,

of course, has been echoed by the mayor of Vancouver and by

several aldermen. Just last week we have the Minister himself

in a speech to the I think it was the chamber of commerce, was

it? Board of Trade at the Hotel Vancouver, launching a bitter

attack on, it seems to me, just about everybody who is

connected with the National Harbours Board.

The newspaper

article is headed "Lauk Blasts Port

Operations." He says:

"While the federal government is sponsoring a major

waterfront study, the local member, Mr. Rathie, is playing a

guerrilla-type action that apparently is without regard for community,

provincial or western Canadian interests."

I fault the Ministry of Transport and Ottawa which is

apparently not in control of its own service.

Later on the Minister said that he cited Roberts Bank as a

sensitive spot where conflicting interests meet head on, and

where the relationship between the National Harbours Board and

the B.C. Harbours Board is obscure.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister gave a very general and diffuse

answer to some of the questions I asked about the future for

harbour development, and I am certainly not trying at this

point in time to blame the Minister for some of the chaos which

he, himself, has been honest and blunt enough to describe. What

we want to know in this House is the next positive, productive

step which is proposed by this government and by this Minister

to get this unholy mess straightened around for the very simple

reason that the economy of British Columbia is heavily

dependent upon the efficacy with which it can transport and

export products brought to the lower mainland.

I can well appreciate now that with a federal election in the offing

life might be difficult in the field of negotiations. I'm not denying

that. But on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, to be politically realistic

it may well be that this is as good a time as any to try and deal with

the federal government if, indeed, it is the Minister's conviction

that, as he stated here, the Ministry of Transport in Ottawa is not in

control of its own servants. I would like to know what action, if any,

the Minister has taken officially or unofficially to support the

request by more than one of the federal Ministers that Mr. Rathie

resign.

It would appear from reading this sad situation, as it has

been publicized from about early March, that Mr. Rathie is

certainly very much a stumbling block towards any kind of

progressive and successful operation of the harbour of

Vancouver. We have had the rather unusual experience, I think,

of seeing at least two federal Ministers ask for his

resignation, not to mention the civic elected officials in

Vancouver. I think that when things reach this point we are

entitled in this House to know what the Minister feels about

this, what action, if any, he has taken, or more importantly,

what action he is planning to take in the future.

The other point I wish to raise at this time is that I also

spoke in the debate earlier on when again, I must regretfully

say, the Minister gave a rather bland, generalized answer when

I talked about one specific instance where this province had

passed up the opportunity to contract for the construction of

four fairly large oil tankers. I won't go through the details

again, but here today, right here in this House, we have the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

explaining why and under what circumstances we've spent $17

million buying secondhand merchandise from Sweden — $17 million

worth, 50 per cent more than the two ferries that are going to

be built here in British Columbia.

Now, I know, Mr. Chairman, you just can't develop the

facilities to do this overnight. But the answer the Minister

gave me a week or so ago when we were in this debate, in my

view and in retrospect, was really quite inadequate in view of

the fact that at that very time this government is taking no

initiatives to develop the shipbuilding industry.

You know, it really interests me that in this House, not too

long ago, perhaps a year ago, one of the Members on this side

of the House asked the Premier and Minister of Finance about

unemployment. Oh, there was a big arm waving demonstration by

the Premier that well, of course, this province had had no

initiative in the shipbuilding industry even when federal

subsidies were readily available, and that the Social Credit

administration had been very neglectful in this respect. But

indeed this government would show the way in industrial

development as far as shipbuilding was concerned. In fact, as I

recall, the Premier even

[ Page 2874 ]

promised that he would encourage the federal

government to

get into the creation of a Canadian merchant marine

operation.

Now, all I say, Mr. Chairman, without holding up the

business of the House, is that today, far more so than the

instance I quoted of the Indonesian company seeking tankers to

be constructed in British Columbia, here we have our own ferry

needs being met by the purchase of, I think, a very expensive

secondhand ship from Sweden that was built five years ago, and

presumably is either past its best or for some reason the

Swedes are ready to sell the ship.

I just ask the Minister: are there any more specific plans,

other than what he mentioned in response to my earlier

questions, about British Columbia getting into shipbuilding in

a big way?

When we think of the potential there is both in terms of our

access to water and the obvious world demand for shipping,

ferries, tankers, you name it…. As the Minister of

Transport and Communications said earlier this afternoon, when

they started looking round for a ship there were only two

alternatives, as far as they could determine, which surely

suggests that here is a market. In fact the Minister himself

said that it is a seller's market. Surely, it should be

patently obvious to everyone in British Columbia interested in

its industrial development that we should get into shipbuilding

in a big way to provide ferries, which obviously we are going

to continue to need, and to provide ships that many other

countries in the world are presently having constructed in

Japanese yards and British yards and European yards, and all

over the world.

In the instance I quoted a week or so ago, this particular

marine consultant, who was instructed to arrange for the

contract for the construction of the ships, said that he

couldn't find a yard anywhere in Canada that would take any

contract within four years.

I know we have problems in some of our trade in this

province with producing goods, either natural goods such as

vegetables and apples which we can produce in abundance and

can't find an adequate market for, or we can't get the price to

meet the cost of production. Here is an area of industrial

trade and development which is just gasping for an increase in

sellers, for more people, for more countries with the potential

and the expertise to build ships.

I hope that on these two vital aspects of our economy which

the Minister has touched on — and with respect, I think rather

generally and inadequately — harbour development and

shipbuilding, the Minister will give us some specific answers

to these questions.

HON. MR. LAUK: I would like to be brief because you have the

article before you, Mr. Member, and it was well publicized what

my remarks were to the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, why don't you read the paper? You seem

to pick up scraps of paper from Japan — read some of the local

news as well instead of sitting there making snide remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: All you do is make snide remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Hon. Minister address the

Chair, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the port facilities, I think they are in a

chaotic situation. They have just announced another study from

the federal government. I think the attack on Mr. Rathie and

the study are all scapegoats; I think they are sidestepping the

issue. The issue is threefold: the administration of our port

facilities in this province; the planning of port facilities

and expansion; and the communications problem between those who

use the port facilities, will require the use of them, and

those who are building, planning and administering them. It has

been an ugly situation for several years. It is not getting any

better. I see no signs of improvement.

Now, you asked for a concrete step. I'm drafting a letter

now to the federal government, and I'll be releasing it in due

course. There is some information I want to put in the letter,

or decide whether or not to put in the letter, with respect to

my department's plan to assist in port development — to the

federal government Ministry of Transport.

But, you know, when a couple of cabinet Ministers are

calling for the resignation of someone who is a member of a

board which is the creature of the federal government, one

begins to wonder who is governing this country, Mr. Chairman. I

think the bureaucracy is completely out of the hands of the

Liberal government, and this has got to be recognized. I don't

mind musing about it at home with a sherry, and sitting in a

Victorian wing chair, but we've got to realize that it is now

affecting the very livelihood that we depend on through our

port facilities. I'm gravely concerned.

I hope to be taking definite action on our own, but we

haven't got control of the planning and administration of those

ports. I think we should have control. I think we should have

at least 50 per cent of control with the federal government,

with

[ Page 2875 ]

representation from the Prairie provinces who have

interest in these ports, as well as ourselves. But the residue

of control should be, in my view, somewhere around the 50-50

mark between the province, if it's a maritime province, and the

federal government.

I don't think we have seen any demonstration of interest in

the development of our ports from the federal government

through its agency — none whatsoever. I don't want to set up

the whipsaw situation between ourselves and Quebec and the

other ports which receive a great deal of federal assistance.

But nevertheless, I do feel we have been particularly ignored

by the federal government and I think they've got to pay for it

now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, we'll approach them and see how far we

do get, Mr. Member, if there's a Conservative government. I'm

sure Prime Minister Lewis will assist us. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, he might. Shipbuilding. Now, really,

this is in the purview of the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I think it's also within

our department's interest to increase the industry of

shipbuilding in an economic and a reasonable way within this

area. It is true that we haven't shipbuilding facilities to

even cover some of our own needs, as demonstrated by the

necessity of the Minister of Transport to seek a ferry for our

immediate needs from Sweden. I think he did a good deal and

it's another demonstration of this government's ability to

handle its affairs in a businesslike manner. I congratulate the

Minister for the purchase he has made.

I agree with you that it is regrettable that we didn't have

the facilities here to build ships. It's regrettable that

private enterprise has not responded to the need for ship

construction here. I think they should be encouraged to do so;

I think these kinds of things should take place. There are

various things we should have done in Vancouver that are done

elsewhere. We've got to increase those facilities and that

expertise.

MR. WALLACE: Very quickly, just to follow up. It's all very

well for the Minister just to say, well, private enterprise

hasn't taken the initiative. But is the Minister and his

department actively involved in discussing the matter with

private industry and providing some incentive or proposals that

would make it attractive to private enterprise? It's just too

general a statement that we always get from the Minister.

It was the same with the steel thing. We get the answer that

Western Canada Steel hasn't shown initiatives; we get told that

the shipbuilding industry hasn't shown initiative. I just don't

think that's good enough. I'd like to know if the Minister has

had specific negotiations with the industry, and if not, will

he initiate them and will he give us some outline of

incentives.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm sorry; I should have stated that. Yes, my

department is in contact now with the local shipbuilders, such

as they are, and requesting expansion. I think the response is

favourable; I don't want to go into detail. Other aspects of

the shipbuilding industry, I think, can be encouraged by the

government in a great many ways. Some of those are rather

general now. But I should say there are many alternatives and

no specific ones have been chosen.

The Premier has indicated as long ago, I think, as a year

and a half that this government — was interested in

revitalizing the shipbuilding industry in this province. We

have taken at least some steps in that direction and I hope

other departments will take others.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I was interested in the

remarks of the Minister regarding the development of port

facilities in the Province of British Columbia. I'd like to

spend a few minutes dealing with port facilities, particularly

in northwestern British Columbia and specifically with the

proposed development of the port facilities and enlargement of

those facilities in the City of Prince Rupert.

While it is true that the whole development of that port

facility and some of the attendant transportation facilities

will hopefully be tied into development between the provincial

and federal governments, I'd like to ask the Minister how he

intends to convince any other level of government and the

people of British Columbia that this is a necessity when other

Members of the cabinet seem to work in divergent directions to

your own.

It would seem to me that northern development is predicated

on resource development to a great extent, at least for the

foreseeable future. That resource development lies basically in

two fields: the field of mineral exploration and development

and in the field of timber and the lumber industry.

But if we listen to the statements of the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)….

HON. MR. LAUK: Order!

MR. SMITH: Order? I'm not out of order by any stretch, Mr.

Chairman. When we listen to the

[ Page 2876 ]

statements of other Ministers which have a direct

effect on

the development of any facilities….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I just want to make the point

that I have not ruled the Hon. Member out of order and I would

ask him to address the Chair.

MR. SMITH: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me the

Minister is very touchy about the establishment of order and

the preservation of order in this House even before he knows

what will be asked of him.

HON. MR. LAUK: We've heard the speech before, Ed.

MR. SMITH: Perhaps you have, and you're going to hear it

again, Mr. Minister, because it is important and it's not an

isolated matter; it's an integrated matter of development

throughout all of British Columbia and particularly

northwestern and north-central British Columbia.

If the port of Prince Rupert is to become the facility and

the port it should become with respect to northern development,

then it's incumbent upon the Minister to provide, as much as

possible through his influence, an atmosphere which will create

development. If, on the other hand, other Ministers of the

Crown decide that the policy of their department is to restrict

and retard development, then, Mr. Minister, I suggest you work

with one hand tied behind your back. The investment you will

ultimately be responsible for actively subscribing to and

actively promoting will be to no avail if we do not take into

consideration what we will do with the new transportation

corridors, with the new railway extensions, and exactly what

that will mean in terms of a return to the economy of the

Province of British Columbia.

I think it is a position and a matter the Minister must look

at most seriously. While you have a committee that works, I

know, in conjunction with yourself and other cabinet Ministers,

it does seem to me there is very great divergence of opinion

between one cabinet Minister and the other. As a matter of

fact, there are very contradictory positions taken at the

present time. I think this is something the Minister should

reconcile if he is to be effective in the portfolio he holds at

the present time.

I'd like to refer to one other matter and that is a statement made

by one of the NDP Members when he spoke in Kelowna. This Member was the

chairman of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries (Mr.

Skelly). He was talking about the Province of British Columbia and

presumably the policy of the government. He said the provincial

government is determined to see public enterprise succeed in the

forest-products field in British Columbia. I presume he used that field

because that was the field he was asked to speak about.

"This means the government will use the most

sophisticated technology available and will hire the

best available staff, whether they come from Canada or

abroad.

"If new technology or marketing information becomes

available through the efforts of

government-sponsored research, that technology and that

information should be made available exclusively to

public-owned industry.

"If private enterprise wishes to continue in the

forest industry, it must do so as a competitor."

Well, there's a difference between continuing as a

competitor and continuing on the basis of a preferred position

being granted through use of taxpayers' money to Crown

corporations.

One of the aspects of your portfolio is to provide money

in certain instances, by way of grants to institutions — for

instance, the B.C. Research Council — to help them in research

activities in this province. As a matter of fact, the

government from time to time calls upon the B.C. Research

Council and other institutions to perform specific services in

a defined area and come up with suggestions and ideas and

recommendations.

I'd like to know, and I think it should be spelled out quite

specifically by the Minister, where he stands with respect to

the statement that was made by the Hon. MLA speaking to the

Association of B.C. Professional Foresters in Kelowna. Does he

agree that when the government provides certain grants or

financial assistance to councils — to the research council or

to any other organization — that that obliges that institution

to do their research for the exclusive use of the Province of

British Columbia or a Crown corporation of the Province of

British Columbia?

Certainly that is the indication I get from reading the

article and from listening to a quotation which is, I believe,

a direct quotation from a speech made by that Hon. Member. Was

he flying a balloon or a kite for the Minister of Industrial

Development as well as the other resources Ministers in this

province?

It's the type of statement we have heard before from

backbenchers flying kites for cabinet Ministers. If it is not

the policy of the government, then it certainly should be

spelled out by this Minister before he receives his salary,

because these are the type of statements that do more to

destroy the credibility of the cabinet and the confidence that

industry have in, their continued operations in this province

than anything else I can think of. I would

[ Page 2877 ]

like the Minister to comment on that particular

matter.

HON. MR. LAUK: Simply, I don't agree with the opinion

expressed by the Hon. Member in question. This department will

be continuing to administer the funds that are granted to the

B.C. Research Council. We are satisfied as a government with

the B.C. Research Council's progress and its programme and its

history, which is a fairly sound one. We are using the B.C.

Research Council as a client — not only as a granter, but as a

client — in many, many instances for our own purposes. The B.C.

Research Council should be and is available to private industry

and private individuals to give them that kind of research base

which is so necessary.

I would like to indicate that our department is ready,

willing and able to supply information and its own research

assistance to private industry. That's what we're setting those

departments up for — as well as to advise government.

The development corporation will be interested not so much

in taking equity in every case, but in very few cases. We'll be

providing loans and guarantees — assistance to private

enterprise.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Japanese trip that was taken was

primarily in the interest, so far…. There were many things

discussed in Japan that were of a government nature, but that

was for the purpose of supplying steel to private users. That's

the philosophy of the government. I don't particularly agree

that we've been influenced in any way by that particular

opinion of the Hon. Member that you mentioned.

With respect to the other point that you made, I am very,

very proud of Bill 31. I think it's going to do a great job in

providing the tax revenue for this province for all of those

needs of the people of British Columbia to bring social justice

to this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would request that the Hon. Members

not get into a discussion of bills that are on the order

paper.

MR. SMITH: I would have hoped the Hon. Chairman would have

brought this to the attention of the Minister. I at no time

referred to Bill 31 or any specific legislation before the

House. I referred in general matters to a principle of

development in this province that was incumbent upon the

attitude of the government in order that the Port of Prince

Rupert might be developed to its fullest capability.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I, too, want to deal with the matter of

port development as it affects not only Prince Rupert and the City of

Vancouver, but, indeed, all of the port facilities or the opportunity

for the construction of port facilities which we have on our coastline

for use in international maritime trade.

I read with interest the report of the Minister's remarks to

the Vancouver Board of Trade. I thought it rather typical of

the Minister, now that the federal cabinet Ministers and others

are seeing fit to come forward and publicly kick the National

Harbours Board and certain of its members around, that the

Minister would jump on the bandwagon and take the same

opportunity.

HON. MR. LAUK: You made the same speech a year ago, my

friend.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think it is also significant, having

made the same speech a year ago and having repeated it just

this past week, that the Minister hasn't taken any positive

action on the part of the Province of British Columbia to do

anything about it. He admitted in this House today that all he

has done in a constructive way is to draft a letter, which he's

still looking at, to perhaps send to the federal

government.

This is what has been wrong with port development in the

Province of British Columbia for decades. The provincial

government has always been quite satisfied to leave the matter

of port planning and port administration and port finance to

the national government. I have some constructive suggestions.

I'm not going to belabour the Minister with comments about his

performance, but I have some constructive suggestions, which I

hope the Minister will accept in the manner in which they're

given. It is an attempt to see whether we can't do something

about a situation which is detrimental to British Columbia. In

fact, it's detrimental to all of Canada.

When one looks at the situation, Mr. Chairman, the ports of

the Pacific coast are Canada's ports on the Pacific. They are

the end of the pipeline for all goods which this country might

wish to move into international trade. It is also the end of

the pipeline which receives from international trade those

goods which Canada must have from other nations. In particular,

the ports on our Pacific coast are the ports of western

Canada.

While British Columbia may enjoy some very special benefits

from its maritime location, they are not in any way British

Columbia's ports. I think that this is the one fundamental

basis upon which we must begin to examine the need for planning

of port development which will improve the situation. They are

not our ports. We get some special benefits in employment, both

in the ports and in

[ Page 2878 ]

the service industries, but they're not ours. And

we should

not look upon them as such.

However, because of our particular interest in port

development, I think that we must take a greater role than

British Columbia has ever taken before in ensuring that the

facilities are developed which will enable Canada to be

properly served on the Pacific coast. I would like to suggest

to the Minister that in the comments which he may send to

Ottawa and in the deliberations which his government may have

upon this subject, they consider the establishment of a British

Columbia port authority — not the Harbour Commission that we

currently have, but a British Columbia port authority which

will have the responsibility of administering the ports on the

Pacific coast.

That port authority, however, should have as members of its

council or board of directors representatives of the other

western provinces, a representative from the national

government and also representatives from each of the local

municipal areas wherein the port facilities themselves will be

located.

I think that one of the examples that can best be looked

upon in this latter respect for guidance is the City of

Vancouver. There's no question that activities in the harbour

of the City of Vancouver have been carried on without proper

consideration of the consequences which those activities have

for the city itself.

The city has never been involved as a partner in determining

what development should or should not take place in the

harbour, located as it is within the city boundaries. As a

consequence, frictions have developed, and difficulties have

been created through the port management and the port

administration which the City of Vancouver has been obliged to

adjust to. And this should stop. That's why, Mr. Chairman, I

hope that the Minister, in putting forward any proposal for a

new port authority, a new administrative structure, will make

certain that there is representation from the local governments

or municipalities in whose areas those facilities are

found.

Mr. Chairman, while the board of directors or the general

council administering the port authority should have

representations from these levels of government, I think it is

absolutely essential that the administration of the port be

carried on without government interference, and that the

management and senior administrative staff of the port

authority should be selected from people whose skill and

experience will enable them to administer the port as a

functioning part of our transportation system.

Indeed, the difficulties that we are experiencing with the

National Harbours Board should surely convince the government

of the wisdom of keeping its fingers out of the management of

the port itself.

I suspect that any failures that there may have been — and

there have been many — in the operation of the Port of

Vancouver have resulted directly from political interference at

the federal government level. And we must avoid the

consequences of that interference if we are ever to solve the

problems which we currently face today in the ports on the

Pacific.

Having said these things, Mr. Chairman, I think it is also

fair to say, however, that there has been a great deal of

criticism of the operation of the Port of Vancouver which is

not justified. There is no question, as far as the development

of containerization facilities is concerned, that the Port of

Vancouver has lagged behind. We have lost much of the business

which could flow from the provision of those facilities to

other ports and harbours. But a lot of the difficulties that

confront us in the Port of Vancouver are caused by

transportation failures outside of the port itself. Each day

since Christmas, the middle of December, there have been from

12 to 14 to 16 ocean-going vessels at anchor awaiting cargoes

or 16 vessels.

The cost of demurrage which is borne by the shipper of goods

is astronomic. Some vessels are leaving Vancouver with

demurrage charges of $120,000 to $140,000. In the case of ships

carrying grain cargoes, that demurrage charge is being paid by

the Canadian Wheat Board and, in essence, by the Canadian

taxpayer. And you wonder why.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the Canadian

Wheat Board has sold Canadian wheat for delivery through the

Port of Vancouver at times of the year when the Canadian Wheat

Board should know that it cannot deliver grain of sufficient

quality and in sufficient quantities to fill those orders. As a

consequence, when the buyers of that grain, expecting to take

delivery during December and January and February and March,

dispatch ships to the Port of Vancouver to receive that grain,

those ships cannot be berthed. There is no point in taking them

in to berth because the cargoes are not available.

The facilities in the Port of Vancouver for the shipment of

grain are sufficient today to handle twice the volumes — and

they are record volumes, Mr. Chairman — which are passing

through the Port of Vancouver. But the fact of the matter is

that we can't get the grain from the Prairies to the Port of

Vancouver in the quantities that are required to meet the

orders. And that is the problem, too, Mr. Chairman, which must

be taken into account in any change in our port facilities and

in their management on the Pacific coast.

I trust that the Hon. Minister, when dealing with the matter

of port facilities, will consider this additional problem of

transportation by rail to the

[ Page 2879 ]

Pacific coast port of Vancouver.

There is another opportunity that we have, and that is to

get on with the construction of the other major port facility — or

capability, at any rate, that we have on the Pacific coast — which will

perhaps overcome to a large extent some of the rail

traffic problems which we are currently experiencing. That is

the development of port facilities at Prince Rupert.

We have been told by the provincial government that

discussions have been going on with the federal government,

certainly since the fall of 1972, but those discussions went on

long before that. I think it is time that those discussions

came to a conclusion and that positive steps were undertaken to

develop the port facility at Prince Rupert.

I would like this Minister to tell us and the people of

British Columbia what it is that is holding it up. We know that

there have been questions of finance so far as the federal

government is concerned. It is my understanding that those are

no longer a problem. We know that there have been problems with

respect to environmental damage — the consequences of the

estuary problem at the Port of Prince Rupert. It is my

understanding that the federal Department of the Environment

has conducted studies, has reached conclusions and has

indicated that port construction can be proceeded with in

Prince Rupert.

I would like to know if there is anything else that's

holding up construction in Prince Rupert. Does the provincial

government accept the studies and the financial aid available

from the national government? Or does it also have some barrier

to overcome before we are going to get on with the Port of

Prince Rupert? The Port of Prince Rupert, as I say, will have

one major advantage, and that is that the use of its facilities

is not going to further encumber the rail lines which serve the

ports in the southwestern part of this province.

The Port of Prince Rupert should also come within the

administrative responsibility of what I have called the British

Columbia Harbour Authority. So should Roberts Bank.

The development of these major port facilities and

capabilities should move forward quickly with the cooperation

of this government, the national government, the local

governments involved, and all those organizations whose

livelihood depends on and whose interests must rest in the

development of maritime traffic.

For too long it has been one government blaming the other.

It has always been convenient to raise the constitutional

division of responsibility between British Columbia and

Ottawa.

Rather than have the Minister write a letter to the national

government, putting forward his concern, I would hope he and his

colleagues in the Government of British Columbia could devise a

management structure for the operation and planning of ports in British

Columbia which they are prepared to accept, and carry it to Ottawa,

urging its cooperation along with the other western provinces whose

concern this port development must also be. Get on with the job of

building on the Pacific coast ports that Canada needs and of which it

can be proud.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to belabour this Japan trip, but

I didn't tell the Minister that he had done nothing over there.

He's the one who said he had done nothing. If the Minister

wants to travel to Japan to discuss future economic development

of this province, that's fine; I've nothing against that, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm saying I don't want him to come back here and try and

mislead the people of this province about what he has done when

he went over there ill-prepared. He had to scratch the surface

to find something to justify his trip.

He, as Minister, has justified going to Japan….

HON. MR. LAUK: You're an old nag, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I wish I didn't have to be an old nag.

I wish the Minister of Industrial Development would do

something so I don't have to stand here and nag him.

HON. MR. LAUK: You have a compulsion for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I haven't a compulsion. I'm one of the

easiest Members in this House to get along with.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's true.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to know what steps this Minister

plans to increase industrial activity in this province. Last

Friday there was an announcement that a great industry was

moving out of this province. I remember not too many months ago

when the then Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) stood in this Legislature and

said Du Pont is moving into Ashcroft with an explosives plant.

Money was flowing in and industry was coming into this

province, and we had to close the gate a little because they

were coming in so swiftly.

But what happened to Du Pont? Du Pont had an explosive

situation in British Columbia.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They're not coming in now.

MR. PHILLIPS: The whole deal blew up. It blew

[ Page 2880 ]

up in the government's face; it blew up in the

Minister of

Industrial Development's face. Last Friday Du Pont said, "We

moved in here to serve the mining industry." That great piece

of legislation the Minister is so proud of has lit the fuse.

Bill 31 has lit the fuse and caused this explosives plant to

pick up and move out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When the Hon. Minister was

speaking I requested that there be no discussion of bills on

the order paper. I would ask the Hon. Member to refrain.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would certainly be most pleased to abide by

your ruling.

This Du Pont company is moving out after the expenditure of

some $4 million and another large expenditure on behalf of the

government to build a road to this explosives plant. Is this

the type of work the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce is doing? Did he consult with Du Pont and did they

consult with him? Did he know they were moving out? Did he

understand the reasons why they were moving out?

HON. MR. LAUK: Do you want me to answer that?

MR. PHILLIPS: It bothers me, because it's not only Du Pont.

Let's take a look at a few more projects. "Cominco Defers

Projects." "Newmont Quits British Columbia." I'm quoting from

what's supposed to be an entertainment

article by Lorne Parton

in the April 20, 1974, Province .

It's not very

entertaining to me because he says:

"In one of the last deliveries before the mail chute

hit the

fan, a letter, with enclosure, from mining accountant M.R.

Bertram.

"The enclosure was a subscription offer which the

correspondent suggested be sent on to Mines Minister Leo

Nimsick."

The publication was The Northern

Miner Press .

" 'In the same publication it is interesting and

alarming to

note such as the following, all datelined Vancouver.' "

I've already mentioned two of them. It says:

"Student jobs

dwindling in face of B.C. royalty bill."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It appears the Hon. Member is

bringing in information more properly brought in at the time of

the debate on Bill 31. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine

his remarks to the direct responsibilities of the Minister and

the estimates before us.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I really want to say

is that there are many more projects listed in this supposedly

entertaining

article — I didn't find it very entertaining — that are

being deferred out of the Province of British Columbia.

I want to know what the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce is doing about it. As I said before in this

House — and I probably will have to say again — with $25

million at his disposal for nearly well over 12 months now, the

Minister has done absolutely nothing.

For my enlightenment and the enlightenment of the rest of

the House, I would like the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce to stand on the floor of this Legislature

and declare the projects he has had a hand in bringing in to

the Province of British Columbia — as a matter of fact, any

project that has come in since he has been Minister whether he

had a hand in them or not.

You know something, Mr. Chairman: that will be the shortest

speech he ever made. That Minister has done absolutely nothing.

That Minister should be the nerve centre coordinating all

industrial development in this province. Through his department

should be coordinated activities in the forestry department;

through his department should be coordinated activities in the

mining department, as well as all of the other activities

related directly to industries that have nothing to do with the

resources of this province.

But the more I see and hear of the Minister, I feel he

doesn't even talk to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

The reason? We want a copper smelter in British Columbia, and

he didn't mention a copper smelter on his trip to Japan. The

Minister of Mines says, "Well, we'll build our own copper

smelter; we don't need any outside help." Those aren't the

exact words he used, but he said we didn't need any help from a

certain country or a certain people in that country. I won't

quote the Minister because the words are very nasty, Mr.

Chairman.

But he doesn't coordinate and he doesn't talk. We're talking

about a large coal development in the Sukunka field. Who seems

to be doing all the negotiating, Mr. Chairman? It's the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

The Minister announced that he had signed a great DREE

programme with Ottawa. I'd like to know what benefits are going

to be derived to the Province of British Columbia as of now

from signing this agreement. Can an individual industry that is

prepared to expand at this time deal directly with Ottawa? Can

they get money? Or do we have to wait for the specific

agreements?

I agree in principle that the whole province should be under

the umbrella of a DREE programme, so that if there is an area

anywhere that an industry should go into and is in line for

receiving federal funds, and if it's feasible to put

[ Page 2881 ]

that particular industry in that particular area,

then it

shouldn't be that they have to move to an area which might not

be economically feasible.

I agree with this in principle. But I would like to know if

these specific agreements to do with hydro development, to do

with mining development, to do with roads, to do with

rebuilding the Alaska Highway, to build power dams and railway

extensions — how are these agreements progressing? When are

they going to come into being?

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I remember in the 1972 spring session — I guess we'll have

to call this the spring and summer session — when we talked

about the effects of the petroleum legislation on the Peace

River area. Why, immediately the Minister of Finance announced

that he would send up a team to do a survey. To this date, this

very day, I haven't seen the results of that.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce said he wasn't quite satisfied

so they sent another group up last fall to survey as to what is

really required in that great area. Has the survey been

completed? What are the results?

We talk about the great development of that northern part of

the province — we're going to build roads, we're going to build

railroads, we're going to build power dams — but none of the

people in the north really seem to know what you're going to

do. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Industrial

Development should go up there and consult with these people,

let them know what's going on.

We're talking about expanding educational facilities in the

north, particularly in the post-secondary field. But how can we

plan educational programmes to train and equip our young people

to go forward into industry and commerce if we haven't the

foggiest idea what the economy of that area is going to be?

Sounds logical to me, Mr. Chairman; I'm sure it sounds logical

to you.

I get back to the fact and to the point that this great

department and this great Minister, whose estimates we are

discussing now, really should be the centre of government

because the Department of Agriculture is going to depend on

decisions emanating from this department, from this Minister.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who has to make

decisions with regard to health facilities in the north

country, is another area which is going to depend on decisions

made by this Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce who should be coordinating all of the activity of that

area. I could go right through the entire cabinet.

Decisions to be made by the Minister of Transportation and

Communication (Hon. Mr. Strachan), estimates for future

development are going to depend on decisions emanating from the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this Minister understands the

tremendous responsibility that rests on his shoulders for the

direction of the entire government, and I could go through the

whole cabinet. Any decisions that are made should be

coordinated with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce because you have to have a tax base to work from.

The Minister of Finance shouldn't even make decisions without

coordination with this department because it is the

all-important department in government; it is the most

important department in government. Without providing jobs and

commerce and a tax base, in what direction do we head? Where do

we go?

I appreciate the step forward that has been taken by the

Minister, but I would plead with the Minister that before these

final DREE agreements are signed that he hold a conference, and

hold it in the north. Invite in the elected officials; invite

in the MPs; invite in the MLAs from that area; invite in the

regional district people; invite in the local council.

HON. MR. LAUK: Another delay?

MR. PHILLIPS: Not another delay. Absolutely not. This isn't

going to delay you one little iota.

HON. MR. LAUK: Just checking.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. Call a conference. Bring these people

in and explain to them — let everybody get in. You talk about

open government — let the local people know what's going to

happen to their future so they can plan, so the city councils

can plan, so the school boards can plan, so the hospital boards

can plan, so we know where we're going. Then, Mr. Chairman,

maybe the Minister will pick up some ideas. But it's not a

delay, absolutely no delay. The Minister hasn't done anything

so far and heaven knows that I wouldn't want to suggest

anything that would delay him further.

He hasn't even told me during his estimates where he's

going. If he had said, "Look, this is what we've done. These

are the reasons we haven't done something, but these are our

plans. This is where we plan to go. This is how we plan to

coordinate all of the departments of government. This is how we

plan to use this $25 million that was given to us," then

people would have some idea of the direction and we wouldn't

have to keep, as the Minister said — what term did he use a

little while ago? — harping, nagging. We'd like to know.

The Minister wants us to vote him $4,332,391.

[ Page 2882 ]

We voted him about half that amount last year, and I

can't

really see one specific instance — maybe one, maybe the steel — where

the taxpayers' money has been well spent. If we'd had no

department last year, none whatsoever, we wouldn't be any

further behind. This grieves me because I was really looking

forward to seeing this Minister function, seeing him come up

with some new and fresh ideas, some concrete suggestions and,

above all, some action. But all we've got is a series of

industries that are saying, "Thank you, but we've got our

bellyful of British Columbia and we're moving out; we're moving

into the Yukon or we're moving into the North West

Territories." This sickens my heart. It bothers me, Mr.

Chairman, because there's been a lot of hard work and effort go

into building this province, into providing the great tax base

that it now has so that this socialist government can carry out

some of its social programmes.

What really bothered me is that if this Minister doesn't

function and doesn't do his job, the tax base will disappear

and so will the social programmes. Either that or you'll have

to go into debt which my children and their grandchildren will

be paying off in years and years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister will once again give me

his comments as to why some of these industries are moving out,

what he's doing, what he's done, where he's going, and take to

heart my suggestion to have this conference. Let's, for

heaven's sake, get this department on the road. Let's get all

the cabinet Ministers speaking to one another. Let's not have

one going off in one direction, such as the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources not even consulting with the

Minister of Development — the Minister of Mines taking off in

another direction. It reminds me of a wagon wheel, with each

cabinet Minister sort of going off in a different direction,

going round and round and getting nowhere. You're being pulled

along, Mr. Chairman. This wagon wheel is being pulled along by

world economics. And if it weren't for world economics, the

high price of our minerals, the high price of our lumber and

the great demand for the rest of our natural resources, this

province would slide backwards. What we need is a great deal of

forward thinking and forward planning. I'm disappointed that

none of that has emanated from this particular Minister. I want

him to stand up and apologize for what he's done and tell us

where he's going.

HON. MR. LAUK: As I was listening to the Member for South

Peace River, I was reminded of a story that the Minister of Health told

me, just having returned from that area of the country. He said he was

talking to a member of the Hon. Member for South Peace River's

constituency who asked the Hon. Minister of Health, "You've got an

awful long session down there; we don't see much of our MLA." And the

Minister of Health said, "Yes, that's true." The constituent said, "Do

you think you could run it a little longer?" (Laughter.) But I don't

see why that person would say such a thing because you're such a

lovable person and you're so easy to get along with. I think you're

full of hot air, but you're easy to get along with.

MR. PHILLIPS: Vicious attack. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: The Member from South Peace River says that

my department should be the nerve centre of the government.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not the nervous centre.

HON. MR. LAUK: He said that we haven't done anything since

my appointment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. LAUK: I shouldn't repeat the Hon. Member's speech,

but I recall the former administration's Minister, Waldo

Skillings — there was a nerve centre, eh? That was the kind of

nerve centre that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) should have a look at. That's more in his line of

nerves.

MR. WALLACE: That was one-punch Waldo.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now, you just relax. Use your own material.

(Laughter.)

The Hon. Member for South Peace River mentioned Du Pont. The

other day two executives of Du Pont from Montreal flew out and

came to see me and said, "Mr. Minister, I'm concerned about the

statements made by the leader of the Social Credit party with

respect to the closure of Du Pont."

I said: "What's your concern?" He said: "We closed Du Pont

because we had made a serious blunder in our market analysis,

and we have the papers here to show you where we blundered."

So the statements made by the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) and his leader (Mr. Bennett) were manifestly

incorrect and conjured up by themselves.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Why don't you check with the executives of

the company? They are not going to spend that much money and

close the place down because of some fanciful reason that

you've suggested. The reason is clearly this: they misread

[ Page 2883 ]

the market for small-bore explosives, not total or

bulk

explosives.

MR. PHILLIPS: They misread the socialist government, that's

what they misread.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Ashcroft company was supposed to be for

the small-bore type of explosives. They had unexpected cost

overruns, and with respect to the market analysis they were

completely wrong, and that's why they've had to close down. I'm

surprised because Du Pont is not a Crown corporation. I thought

only Crown corporations under a socialist government were

supposed to make stupid mistakes like that, not private

enterprise. I'm amazed.

MR. WALLACE: They're the best example.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, anyway, they can….

MR. McGEER: They do a few things right, too.

HON. MR. LAUK: There's one thing about doctors, Mr.

Chairman: they can't correct their mistakes the next day. The

Hon. Member raised another few points and I'll deal with them

briefly. The problems you mention — that we haven't been

communicating in cabinet with a copper smelter — the joint study

committee happens to be made up of officials and consultants

that represent two Ministries.

MR. PHILLIPS: After we suggested it to you.

HON. MR. LAUK: Not after. This committee was appointed and

agreed upon between the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and myself some months ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's our suggestion. After we prodded you to

get something going.

HON. MR. LAUK: There he is with his imaginary sword,

stabbing into the wind again. Non-issues, just purely his very

productive imagination.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell me what you've done.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm just as frustrated with the delays to get

things done as anyone else. I'm just as frustrated as you are,

Mr. Member. I want to get them done.

The BCDC executive committee has just approved its first several

small business loans which should be announced soon, in the next few

days. There is a programme of land banking for industrial purposes

going on in the province….

MR. PHILLIPS: Leave that for the Minister of Lands.

HON. MR. LAUK: He says "Leave it to the Minister of Lands."

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that's not what the mayors

and aldermen of the municipalities in your riding have been

telling me for the past several months. You should go back and

check with them instead of being very windy in these chambers.

Turn on a big ear up there and you'll learn something and you

might save your seat, though I doubt it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Awful windy! You haven't said anything

yet.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — he's not present. I was going to

answer some of his points.

I agree substantially with his comments on port facilities.

But I should point out that I did make the speech on the port

authority situation a year ago and since that time we've done

more than just sit around and grumble about it, even though we

cannot develop our own facilities without the complete

cooperation of the National Harbours Board. Not because we can

be legally prevented from doing it, only in some cases, but

because their cooperation is absolutely necessary for it to be

successful.

He raised the very issue that makes it necessary and that's

national transportation — the whole planning of the network of

transporting bulk cargo and other cargo through the port of

Vancouver and other ports in this Maritime province. What he's

saying is: "Well, in a year you should have singlehandedly

amended the BNA Act," and only the Parliament in

Westminster can amend that Act.

It's very frustrating and I think we should have the kind of

port authority that he suggested. I think his suggestion for

local municipality representation is an excellent one. He

raised the point about grain to Vancouver, and several problems

occurred. I think part of it has to be a discussion of the

terminal railway situation in Vancouver. After some pressure by

me personally and the government generally, the Transportation

Act has finally been tabled.

I'm sure other Ministers in other provinces have been

putting on that pressure. We are most disturbed at the delay

for that very vital piece of federal legislation which will

help clear up the terminal railway situation in Vancouver and

in many other jurisdictions as well.

Grain supply. There has been a railcar shortage

[ Page 2884 ]

of grain as well. The Prairie collector system, the

branch lines and so on of the collector system in the Prairies are in

disrepair. The country elevator system, which is caused by the

1890 Crow's Nest Grain Rate Act , is another problem — no

central clearing house for grain and so on.

There's a slowdown on the railroads currently and so on, so

you are always going to see ships of one description and

another in our harbour. If it's not grain, it's something

else.

The major issue is the one he raised, which is national

transportation and that kind of planning.

With respect to Prince Rupert, already under the agreement

there is a general commodity wharf being constructed at Fraser

View. The only thing preventing the further bulk loading thing

from proceeding, it seems to me, are the environmental studies,

and we'll have to wait patiently for those. I think those were

substantially the points that were raised by the Hon. Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) just had a supplementary, and then

I'll go on.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister, Mr. Chairman, didn't advise me

whether he would consider having a conference in the north to….

HON. MR. LAUK: Mayor Bob Trail has already announced that

they'll be having a conference there in late May or early

June.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Chairman. Where is

it going to be? In Prince George or Dawson Creek?

HON. MR. LAUK: It'll be in the Peace River region.

MR. PHILLIPS: In the Peace River region. Well, maybe we're

going to get a little action. But the thing that really

disturbs me…

HON. MR. LAUK: It was announced a week ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: …in that lengthy talk that the Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, just finished,

is that he still didn't tell us one thing that his department

has done nor did he tell us what his plans are.

Normally a Minister of the Crown advises the House what his

plans are but about all he could do, Mr. Chairman, was attack

me — which is fine. I find it very difficult to get mad at this

Minister because….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Really, I find it very difficult to get mad at

him because it's sort of like a joke. The whole department is

like a joke.

I was just looking around here a short time ago, Mr.

Chairman, and this is a magazine "British Columbia Industry.

The Business of British Columbia, second quarter, 1973." The

Minister's smiling face is on the front with a picture of a

blast furnace. He has a lot of talk about the steel industry

and where British Columbia is heading. It's pretty well all

theory.

HON. MR. LAUK: Would you like me to autograph it?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I don't need it autographed. But there's

one little

article here, one quotation from him, Mr. Chairman.

It says "Never forget that the whole country was built on a

pipe-dream and a pipe-dream that worked."

Well, I honestly believe that that is the Minister's theory.

He thinks that he's going to sit around and pipe-dream and all

of a sudden something's going to happen. But if he feels that

this country was developed on a pipe-dream and that this

province was built on a pipe-dream, he's got another think

a-coming. Because, Mr. Chairman, this great nation of ours was

built on long-range planning and a lot of discussion, a lot of

energy, and on decisions that were made — large decisions — decisions

that were made with people who were old enough to

make those decisions and who had the energy and the courage to

carry them forward. No pipe-dream, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LAUK: Son of Phil Gaglardi.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I presented the Minister with a

proposal back in January. It was a good proposal from a young

fellow who has courage and energy and who is a bit of an

entrepreneur. He has good ideas. Everything he's gone into has

been successful.

This man wants to provide a plan to build a small version of

an all-terrain vehicle which is used by practically all the oil

nations in the world in the northern part of development. This

is a smaller version so that smaller independent companies, and

indeed the bi