1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5545 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Heritage Conservation Act (Bill M203). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 5545

Oral Questions

Status of Ian Jessiman. Mr. Hall –– 5545

Government aircraft flights to Kamloops. Mr. Passarell –– 5545

Urea formaldehyde in B.C. schools. Mr. Lauk –– 5546

PCBs in B.C. schools. Mr. Lauk –– 5546

Health hazards on school grounds. Mr. Lauk –– 5546

Rent increases for service station lessees. Mr. Lea –– 5546

Additional income for income assistance recipients. Ms. Brown –– 5547

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

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5547

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Brummet

Ministerial Statement

Allegation of Alaskan commitment to railway project.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5569

Mr. Lea –– 5570

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure to introduce in your gallery 20

students from the Carson Elementary School in Quesnel. They're

accompanied by their teacher Mr. Ted Melanson and chaperones Reverend

Costerton, Mrs. Shirley Lytle and Nancy Genner. I'd like the members to

welcome them here.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the House to

welcome two old friends, one of whom is the mayor of Coquitlam and the

other a noted alderman in Coquitlam. Please welcome Mayor Jimmy Tonn

and Alderman Les Garrison.

MR. RITCHIE: In the

precincts today we have two groups of students from Central Fraser

Valley. They are from the Alexander Elementary School, accompanied by

their teacher Mr. Nicholas, and from the South Poplar Elementary

School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Doerksen. Would the House

please welcome these students.

MR. HANSON: In the

members' gallery today are five young girls from South Park School.

They are Rebecca Denby, Lara Riecken, Kristin Scott, Krysta Taylor and

Tamara van Elsakker. These girls come each Tuesday to collect all of

the newsprint in the parliament buildings and recycle it for future

use. I think they set an example for all of us. Let's thank them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I know you'll be pleased to know that in the precincts

this afternoon is a class of grade 7 students from Cherryville

Elementary School, with their principal Mr. Vern Bryant. Cherryville,

as some members may not know, is a thriving metropolis of hunting,

fishing and outdoor living about 50 miles from Lumby. They will be

joining us in the gallery later this afternoon. I ask members to give

them a very warm welcome.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I

would ask the House to make welcome a group of students from Mt. Klitsa

Junior Secondary School in Port Alberni who are touring the buildings

today but unfortunately will not be able to get into the gallery. They

have with them a group of students from Quebec on an exchange program.

I would ask the House to welcome the Mt. Klitsa students and their

guests from the province of Quebec.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today, visiting from the great city of

Kamloops, is a group of students from North Kamloops Elementary. I

would ask the House to please bid them welcome.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming

nine students from Klemtu, a small village in my constituency, and

their teacher, Dan Robson.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to note a very memorable occasion for one of the

members of this House. I would ask all members to join with me in very

best wishes on his forty-seventh birthday to the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf).

MR. LAUK: On behalf of the official opposition — we're always here — happy birthday, Jack.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

HERITAGE CONSERVATION ACT

On a motion by Mrs, Wallace, Bill

M203,

An Act to Amend the Heritage Conservation Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

STATUS OF IAN JESSIMAN

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. Yesterday I asked

him if, in the case of Mr. Ian Jessiman, we had hired Mr. Jessiman as

an assistant deputy or as a consultant. In the Attorney-General's reply

he said that Mr. Jessiman is not an assistant deputy minister, and went

on to elaborate on that. Even while we were speaking in the House

yesterday, the government was distributing directories of ministries. I

find in that document, under the Ministry of the Attorney-General, that

the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, legal services, is Mr. Ian

Jessiman, QC. I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell me who is

correct — the Attorney-General or the directory that his ministry has

put out.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General is correct, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL:

As the point of question period is to make sure of facts and to find

out what the facts are, we're slowly but surely getting the answers

from the Attorney-General regarding Mr. Jessiman. Mr. Jessiman, Mr.

Speaker, is also the president of Jesco Financial Services. Can the

minister advise the House if any payments have been made to that

company?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't advise if any

payments have been made to that company. I'm not equipped with that

information today, but I'd be most happy to take the question as notice

and bring the information back to the member.

MR. HALL:

Further, can the minister confirm that Mr. Jessiman has already

received a relocation cheque from the comptroller-general to cover his

expenses, despite the minister's claims recently that Mr. Jessiman had

not yet moved?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I

think the member misinterprets a response to an earlier question. Yes,

Mr. Jessiman was paid relocation expenses in accordance with standards

which are applied for the transfer of senior officials of government

within the province and from outside.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

FLIGHTS TO KAMLOOPS

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Given

that three government aircraft flights arrived at Kamloops airport on

Saturday, May 9, 1981, will the minister indicate to the House the

names of those persons of the Social Credit Party who have been flown

into and out of Kamloops on government aircraft during the by-election

so far?

[ Page 5546 ]

HON. MR. FRASER:

To the member for Atlin, I can ascertain that, but I'm not aware that

three government aircraft went to Kamloops. I'm not surprised; it's a

very busy spot for government air services 12 months of the year.

Sometime the logs will show up and we can find out what happened.

MR. PASSARELL:

Has the minister decided to table the flight logs of the government

aircraft for the last month instead of waiting the mandatory 19 months

as he usually does?

HON. MR. FRASER: The logs that are required have been tabled in the Legislature, and when they're required again they will be tabled.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE IN B.C. SCHOOLS

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can the minister

inform the House as to the number of schools in British Columbia which

contain urea formaldehyde in their insulation?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm going to take that question as notice, but will tell the member we

have been studying the situation — even prior to the announcements last

week — to ascertain that so that I can give him a careful answer on the

results. I'll take the question as notice, and thank him.

MR. LAUK:

My office, and I'm sure his, has received a number of concerned calls

from parents, and also from administrators. I wonder if the minister,

in so doing, would take this question as notice. What steps has the

minister decided to take to ensure that the use of urea formaldehyde

poses no threat to the health of B.C. school children? Would he take

that as notice?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes.

PCBs IN B.C. SCHOOLS

MR. LAUK: Can the minister assure the House that there is no electrical equipment containing PCBs in schools in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again I will take that question as notice. That matter, along with the previous one, is under investigation.

MR. LAUK:

The phone number is in the book, Mr. Speaker. If you call the federal

environmental protection service they advise that there are three

school districts with PCBs in their electrical equipment. Has the

minister decided to take steps to have them removed at once?

MR. SPEAKER:

The original question was taken as notice. The supplementary question

is not in order unless the minister wishes to indicate he wants to take

that as notice as well.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I will look into that matter, along with the others that the member has raised.

HEALTH HAZARDS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS

MR. LAUK: There was a report that spraying of insecticide in and around

a school recently has caused the closure of that school. Has the minister taken

steps to prevent further use of the spray which has caused deleterious effects

to teachers and students in the schools?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Spraying of harmful substances on school grounds, of course, is

contrary to school policy, and school boards are generally very careful

in that regard. In the instance referred to by the member, there

apparently was a substance sprayed which was not known to be harmful,

and in fact it was. I consider that to be a serious matter, and I will

again take steps to bring to the attention of districts across the

province the importance of checking all substances used in spraying in

areas where students and members of the public can come into contact

with it. School boards are generally very careful about this.

MR. LAUK:

Has the minister decided to appoint a ministry committee to review all

possibilities and probabilities of health hazards in and around schools

throughout the province of British Columbia? Is he going to make that

report public?

RENT INCREASES FOR

SERVICE STATION LESSEES

MR. LEA: To the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Service station owners who are

leasing their service stations have had phenomenal rent increases

imposed on them by a number of major oil companies in the last two

years. Examples are Esso, 114 percent; Shell, 82.8 percent; Texaco,

79.4 percent; Gulf, 194 percent. The only one that is keeping it within

some sort of reasonable limit is PetroCan, with an increase of 16.4

percent. What action has the minister decided to take to roll back some

of these excessive rent increases placed on small business communities?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I met with the Automotive Retailers Association to discuss this

problem. We're working with them to attempt to find some solutions to

their difficulties, not only with regard to the rents at their service

stations but also in regard to the guidelines for independent owners of

service stations. We will be taking further action shortly. It's my

understanding that as of earlier this week a 60-day moratorium was

placed on rental increases by the oil companies so that they as well

can work with their dealers on some cooperative effort.

MR. LEA:

They've closed the barn door after everything has escaped. The minister

says he will be taking further action shortly. He's obviously decided

what that action is going to be. What will that action be?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said that we're working in cooperation with the Automotive Retailers Association. We'll be developing that action shortly.

MR. LEA:

The minister said: "We will be taking action shortly." Obviously the

policy has been arrived at. What action will you be taking shortly?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

For those who either don't understand or are hard of hearing, I said

that I met with the Automotive Retailers Association. We are continuing

to meet with the Automotive Retailers Association to attempt to resolve

a decision.

MR. LEA: Can the minister tell me, then, why he stated in the House just a few minutes ago that they'll be taking

[ Page 5547 ]

action shortly? If you don't know what it is, what are you going to do?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The only reason I stated that we would be taking action shortly is because we will be taking action shortly.

ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR

INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

MS. BROWN: My question

is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. At this time single

recipients of social assistance who work can only earn $50 without

affecting the amount of assistance they receive, and recipients with

dependents can only earn $100. Last July the federal government

proposed that the ceiling be increased to $75 a month for single

recipients and $150 for families. Can the Minister of Human Resources

explain why the provincial government has refused to take advantage of

this cost-shared program which would allow social assistance recipients

to better themselves and get off welfare?

MR. SPEAKER: By its nature the question suggests a very long answer. Is question period sufficient time for this?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I can give a fairly quick answer. Perhaps I can provide the member with a full explanation later.

thank the member for the question. As a matter of fact our ministry has

been working for perhaps the last 18 months in addressing ourselves to

this problem of providing some assistance and an incentive for those

who are on income assistance. We have been successful in providing a

very good plan called the Individual Opportunity Plan, which does give

flexibility within that program to allow and offer assistance to income

assistance recipients to have the opportunity to make themselves

independent, The member's question has to do with the amount of money

that an income assistance recipient can earn and retain and still stay

on the income assistance of the province. That has been under review

for some time.

I believe our Individual Opportunity Plan

offers a much better plan than was produced by a simple policy change

by the federal administration. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, prior

to the federal government having put forward that suggestion, this

government had already had a pilot project in the city of Victoria. The

pilot project lasted 18 months. It was found that it was not

successful. We feel that the program that we have initiated in British

Columbia is far more successful than the one that has been suggested.

However,

we are pleased to study the results of the program as it has affected

other provinces. Frankly we're not really interested in getting 50-cent

dollars; we're interested in getting people on income assistance a

better and independent way of life.

In this coming week I

will be meeting with all of the ministers of social services from

across the country. I intend to see what the experience has been in all

of those administrations. I will be monitoring and pursuing it. I'd be

pleased to share that information with the member who has asked the

question.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. HOWARD:

Before the committee rose for lunch, some ideas were presented to the

committee relating to Harrison Airways. Some information was provided

by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) that Harrison Airways went broke

as a result of some activity of the NDP when it was government. That is

not in accordance with the facts. I'm putting that in the most polite

way that I can, Mr. Chairman.

I had a relationship with

Harrison Airways at the time it was seeking to obtain permission from

the federal air transport commission. Along with officials from

Harrison Airways I attended meetings before that committee in the city

of Whitehorse in the Yukon, attempting to advance the interests of

Harrison Airways to be able to fly the route of Vancouver-Burns

Lake-Dease Lake-Whitehorse and so on. In fact, I flew with Harrison

Airways from Burns Lake to Vancouver on one occasion.

The

major reason that Harrison Airways was interested in pursuing that

route did not have to do with the mining industry, but had to do with

the potential that may happen in the northern part of the province of

British Columbia as a result of the then-proposed extension of B.C.

Rail into Dease Lake. That was the foundation upon which Harrison

Airways was seeking to get authorization from the air transport

committee to fly there. It is to be noted that sometime in 1976 and

1977, as a result of the Social Credit government's decision, that

railway line extension was formally abandoned and torn up. That was the

foundation upon which Harrison Airways sought to have that route from

Vancouver and those stopping places in the Yukon. It was not the

nonsensical proposition put forward by the member for Omineca. I just

thought that the record should be made straight.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Because mining is such an important part of my constituency's economy I

felt it necessary that I make a few comments during the estimates of

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

It's

rather amusing to hear the last member say that Harrison Airways did

not survive because the B.C. Rail Dease Lake extension was shut down.

The only justification for that extension in the first place was to

service a potentially large mining area up in the Dease Lake part of

British Columbia. Of course, when the "New Disaster Party" became

government in 1972 and in effect killed the mining industry, there was

thereafter no justification or reason to have a railway up there. There

weren't about to be any mines in that part of the province in any event.

I'd

like to hear the members try to justify to themselves and the other

people in British Columbia that they had no adverse affect on the

mining industry in British Columbia. I listened with great interest to

the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the member for Rossland-Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy) convincing themselves and whoever would listen that they

had no adverse affect on the mining industry. I hope they continue to

say that, because that will ensure the re-election of all of us who are

MLAs for areas in which mining is a major part of the economy.

In my own constituency in the town of Princeton, I have the Newmont mine, which employs a large number of my

[ Page 5548 ]

constituents.

In the last few years it's been investing about $30 million to take its

mining operations across the Similkameen River. It is something that

they should have been doing during the period of the NDP government in

British Columbia. They did not do it, because they knew that there was

no way that they could recover the very expensive cost factor in

further developing the old Copper Mountain ore body.

The

Craigmont mine is in Merritt. It is another very important part of the

economy of my constituency. I fared fairly well in Merritt during the

last two elections because of the fear of the return of NDP mining

policies. There is the Highland Valley, where the Premier, the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and I spent last weekend

looking at the tremendous capital investment taking place there which

supports the communities of Logan Lake, Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Merritt

and, to a considerable extent, Kamloops as well. Massive investment is

taking place there, not as a result of NDP policy but as a result of

the climate that has been created for that type of investment since

that time. Bethlehem, Lornex, Highmont and Dekalb mines are all very

massive undertakings requiring a great deal of capital, which will be

repaid as long as we maintain a mining climate in British Columbia.

beg those people to carry on and try to convince themselves, if no one

else, that they did not have an adverse effect on mining in B.C. They

will draw out statistics showing that the value of mineral products

fluctuates in British Columbia, and indeed it does. The value of

production from mines in British Columbia will always fluctuate. Yes,

indeed, there will always be mines closing, because when the ore is

gone mines close. A simple fact they refuse to accept is that they were

responsible, through their ill-advised legislation, of turning hundreds

of millions of tonnes of ore in British Columbia into waste. They don't

have a basic understanding of what ore is. They think it's just

mineralized rock. But ore, as we know, is defined as that which can be

profitably extracted. When they imposed their royalties and their super

royalties upon the mining industry, they added that extra cost to the

cost of producing metals and they turned ore into waste. Mines shut

down. All of them would have shut down eventually, but the closings and

the reduction of operations in the mines that closed at that time were

hastened because of the fact that ore was turned into waste. The

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources spoke of some of

these. I will repeat them because we all should remember.

The

Granduc mine was only half shut down; the rest of it closed down,

indeed, after we became government. The reason the Granduc mine closed

down was that when the NDP came in they had spent massive amounts of

dollars to develop the ore-body at Granduc and they proceeded to mine

it, but when the mining royalty legislation of that party came into

effect that company immediately ceased the development of additional

ore which would have assured that that mine could go ahead into the

future. They stopped developing ore. They stopped assuring the jobs of

the many hundreds of miners who were ultimately laid off as a direct

result of that party's mining policies.

Britannia mine,

Giant Mascot mine, Bradina mine and Jordan River mine closed down

before they had to. Many mines in British Columbia closed down before

they had to. All of these mines would have closed eventually, as all

mines will when the ore deposit is depleted. But the simple fact they

refused to recognize is that mining exploration and development also

close down. What renews and replenishes the ore reserves in this

province is the exploration for and development of mining properties by

prospectors, diamond-drillers and miners. The cessation of that created

the greatest problem for the mining industry in British Columbia.

This

morning the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) referred to a mining

company in Kamloops. As the members know, I was employed by the

Ministry of Mines during that period of time. My office was in the same

building as a fellow by the name of Al Ablett, who was the owner,

manager and operator of Amex Exploration Services Ltd. During that

period of time the staff in my government office went from four people

to 13 people as the workload disappeared. Al Ablett's employees went

from 42 people to two people — him and his wife. The people he employed

no longer had any productive work to do because the government was

making sure that the mining industry would not be around. They were

making sure that they could bring this tremendously vital industry to

its knees so that they could eventually take it over without having to

pay for it.

Mining activity in British Columbia is not

measured in terms of dollars of products produced, because the price of

these products fluctuates year by year. It's determined by the number

of people employed and the amount of activity in that industry. As the

Minister of Forests, if I did not carry out my responsibility for the

renewal of the forest resource, I would be seriously and justifiably

criticized. If I were to say, "We'll remove the trees but we won't do

anything to make sure that we have a forest resource for the future," I

would have no justification for being in the the position I'm in.

However, the NDP government of 1972-75 made sure that absolutely

nothing was done to replenish the resource that was being used up year

by year during that period of time. The renewal and replenishment of

the ore deposits of British Columbia can only be carried out through

exploration, development and expansion of mining technology which, in

fact, creates new ore. Now that silly little member for Victoria

says.... What he doesn't realize is the fact that ore is created

through technology, exploration, development and effort — through the

application of all of these things. It is not something that is there,

period. It is created through the application of effort, technology and

capital. That's what creates ore, my friend. Mr. Chairman, I would only

hope that this group opposite continue to tell the world how they did

not have an adverse effect on mining in British Columbia, because that

will assure once again my re-election. Assuring the re-election of

myself and this government will assure that we have a vital and viable

mining industry in this province for many, many years to come.

Mining

began in British Columbia before the turn of the century. In fact, it

was one of the major things that caused the development of the province

of British Columbia and the economy of this province. At the time that

party came into office, there were more ore reserves in British

Columbia than there had ever been, even after over 70 years of mining.

But with the stroke of a pen, when mineral royalties and the super

royalty legislation was brought in, all of a sudden, through the action

of a government, hundreds of millions of tonnes of valuable ore became

waste rock, and were of no benefit to anyone in British Columbia.

1972 the leader of the government — the Premier at that time — Mr.

Barrett, said: "Unless we can get a better deal for what we are doing,

we will leave the ore in the ground, and I mean it." And that's exactly

what he did: he left the ore in the ground. He turned the ore to waste

and he

[ Page 5549 ]

cancelled

those many hundreds of jobs that were provided for the people of

British Columbia — the opportunities to grow with the province and to

acquire something for themselves. He left the jobs, the opportunities

and the employment in the ground. He was quite proud of that and he

hired some real experts to help him — a fellow by the name of Hart

Horn, who had more expertise.... When Leo left, we said, "Don't worry,

Leo, take Hart," and he did.

This morning members opposite

were talking about the qualifications of Marie Taylor to chair the B.C.

Utilities Commission. She's a lady who has demonstrated year after year

that she is a good administrator and a bright person who is doing an

excellent job. They say somehow that's wrong, and yet they brought in

Hart Horn — from where I don't know — to be an assistant deputy

minister of mines eventually. I remember talking to Hart Horn one day.

because I was employed by the Department of Mines at the time, and he

said: "Tom, I don't know anything about mining, but you give me six

months and I'll know everything there is to know." Six months' time for

Hart Horn. Well, when Leo left, he took Hart, and thank God for that.

Mr.

Chairman, please ask the members opposite to keep telling the people of

British Columbia and Canada how they had no adverse effect on mining.

Tell them time and time again, because that's the only way we'll assure

the people of British Columbia that we will have a mining industry in

the future. Obviously they had no bad effects, in spite of the fact

that copper prices during 1974 went to a level that they have never

been to since. We had mines closing in British Columbia; we had no

exploration activity and no prospecting in British Columbia, and we had

very few mineral claims being staked. Once again, it's the exploration,

the prospecting and the development of mines that assures our industry.

think the minister has gone through some of the numbers of claims

recorded in British Columbia: in 1975 it was at an all-time low in

recent history — about 11,700 claims; last year, after confidence had

been restored to that industry, the mineral claims staked were over

72,000. Most of those will not be developed into ore bodies, but some

of them will. The more claims you stake, the more activity you have:

the more prospectors, drillers, geologists, engineers and miners

working in British Columbia; the more chance of renewing that industry

and of replacing and replenishing the ore that it needs to survive.

must congratulate the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources on continuing the practices of this government in encouraging

that industry, because I don't plan on being in government forever, and

when I get back to the private sector, I would like a mining industry

to be there for me to work in. The policies that this minister promotes

are the policies that we need to assure an industry. The members are

making great sport, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that I was not employed

by the mining industry during their term of office. I'll tell you why:

there was no mining industry to be employed in during that period of

time.

I've been involved all my life in mining in British

Columbia, as has my father in British Columbia since 1925. We have

contributed to the mining industry in this province, and I for one want

to have the opportunity of doing it again. As long as we can maintain

the policies of this government I shall.

MR. SKELLY:

The minister presented us with a bit of a tough decision. He said that

if we went on to say that mining wasn't adversely affected by our

policies then we'd guarantee his election as the member for

Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) in years to come. With that choice

in mind I'm prepared to say we did a bad job in mining if we could get

rid of that member for Yale-Lillooet and the one for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf). It's a tempting suggestion.

The minister talks about

how poorly mining did under the years of NDP government between 1972

and 1975, and I think we had the member for Omineca reading newspaper

articles from the period 1973-1974. Those articles sounded strangely

familiar to me, so I went up to the microfilms upstairs and went back

to the early years of the Social Credit government.... You'll remember

that when the minister and I had a bit of debate across the floor on

Thursday he said: "Well, yes, maybe the mining industry did do all

right in terms of the amount of money that came into the province and

the dollar-value of production of minerals in the province. Maybe they

did all right during your term of office, but you just didn't

understand the people in the mining industry — you just didn't have

that basic understanding of the mining industry."

MR. LEA: Like the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

MR. SKELLY: Like the member for Langley did.

Let

me read a more dated newspaper article. It's headlined "New Act

Horrifies B.C. Miners." Maybe the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

will remember this, although maybe it was a year or so before his time.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, read out of 1200 Days .

MR. SKELLY:

Oh, you don't want to hear about the Social Credit term of office and

what happened to the mining industry and what a plunge they took under

legislation that was presented during the Social Credit term of office.

That's what the member for Cariboo is attempting to say. But let me

read it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. FRASER: Don't stir the waters up.

MR. SKELLY: "My mind's made up," he says, "don't concern me with facts." But let me concern him with a few facts.

HON. MR. FRASER: Where's Leo? I want Leo back.

MR. SKELLY: He may be back as the MLA for Cariboo if you don't watch out.

Here's the story, under the headline "New Act Horrifies B.C. Miners."

"B.C.'s

mining industry has been thrown into a turmoil by proposed new mining

legislation which it claimed will probably close down operating mines,

drive needed capital away from B.C. and leave the industry at the mercy

of government civil servants." Doesn't that sound familiar?

"The

industry is today bombarding the Premier with telegrams and letters,

but it is a foregone conclusion that the government will push through

the bills before the Legislature prorogues this week. One mining

industry representative described the industry as 'horrified' by this

legislation. The industry feels it has been deceived..."

[ Page 5550 ]

Deceived by people who understand the mining industry and understand the people involved in the mining industry?

"...since they had expected the opportunity to study

the new legislation before it was approved in the Legislature."

The

Social Credit government took those bills, rammed them through the

Legislature within weeks, and the industry didn't even have an

opportunity to study them.

"Copies of the bill were received only three days ago, and the legislation seems certain to be passed within a day or two."

Five-day

railroad mining legislation, and the mining industry didn't even have

an opportunity to comment on it. That's from the people who understand

the mining industry and understand the people in the mining industry.

"The industry's alarm erupted today with a statement

by a special industry committee, a letter to the Premier by a mining engineer,

and a telegram to him from a prospector. The opinion of the mine operator as

to when or how mineral deposits should be put into production may differ entirely

from that of a civil servant who would have the final word and yet whose knowledge

of the economics of the case may not be any greater, or even less, than that

of the operator."

Probably

that's referring to a civil servant like the gentleman who is now

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and has now just left the room.

"Risk

capital to develop mineral resources would disappear unless mines are

given some security of tenure regarding mineral claims, said the

committee."

The Premier referred to in this

article is Premier W.A.C. Bennett. The government

referred to in this

article is the Social Credit government. The bills referred

to in this

article are Bills 87 and 91 before the Legislature in March 1957

— under a Social Credit government. And the industries said they were going

to be killed, driven out of the province, and mines were going to be closed

down.

In fact, here is another headline from the Colonist: "Three Mining Firms

Cutting B.C. Activities" — Vancouver, CP, the usual source of legislative

news in the Colonist.

The Sun says that three

major Canadian mining companies are cutting exploration activities in

B.C. this year by more than $250,000, chiefly because of unfavourable

B.C. mining legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose legislation, Bob?

MR. SKELLY: Social Credit. W.A.C. Bennett. Ken Kiernan was the minister

of the day, now the mayor of Chilliwack, and now he's mining land out of

the agricultural reserve.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Frobisher

Exploration Ltd., Continental Exploration, and, of all people, Noranda

Exploration.... "Noranda last year spent more than $425,000 in B.C.

mining activities."

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the member for Alberni

has stated that Mr. Kiernan is the mayor of Chilliwack. This is not so.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I must advise you that that is not a point of order.

Committee does afford every member the right to debate the vote before

us, and issues which come out of the debate.

MR. SKELLY:

I should have said he is the former mayor of Chilliwack, and I

apologize for that slight error — although I'm pleased to see that the

member for Central Fraser Valley didn't doubt the statistics that

appeared in the newspapers during the Social Credit government's term

of office. Here's another one, Mr. Chairman. This one's dated November

2, 1957, and it's by the business columnist for the Vancouver Sun ,

Mr. Bill Fletcher, with an outstanding picture of Mines Minister

Kiernan. "More Lumps For Miners" is the headline. "Just over a week ago

I made the prediction that the Social Credit government wouldn't be

foolish enough to slap a tax on the export of iron ore from B.C. I was

wrong. Premier Bennett apparently doesn't think he's done enough

already this year to ruin the mining industry." Did I get that right?

The copy is a little difficult here. Does it say Premier Bennett? It

says: "Premier Bennett apparently doesn't think he's done enough

already this year to ruin the mining industry." Saturday, November 2,

1957, five years into the first Social Credit government, and already

they're demonstrating heir understanding of the mining industry and

their feelings for people in the mining industry.

What about

this headline, Mr. Chairman? "Sick Industry Needs Cure." Twenty-nine

producing B.C. mines closed down in six years, the first six years of

the Social Credit government.

"During the last

six years, 29 producing mines have closed down in British Columbia.

This year alone, mines that have taken the long count represent almost

a third of total tonnage treated in 1956. Of those that remain, only 14

were sufficiently profitable to be able to declare a dividend to the

end of 1956. Employment in British Columbia's mining industry has

dropped in six years from 7,480 men to 5,100 today."

That's

a drop in employment by those people who understood he mining industry,

and who claim to understand those who work in the mining industry —

when they were in the process of putting 2,000 or more of them out of

jobs in six years.

Dividends declined over ten years of the

Social Credit government. Claim-staking. We hear that claims dropped

dramatically in British Columbia, and all those miners were taking off

and staking their claims in the Yukon. I'd like to read an

article from

the Victoria Daily Times for

Friday, May 1957, but maybe just the headlines will do: "Canadians

going North: New B.C. Mining Law Seen Aiding Alaska." We kept ours in

the country; you sent them all off to Alaska.

"The

slump is also reflected in the number of mining claims staked by

prospectors. In the first three months of this year there were 3,008

compared with 7,836 in the same period last year. The drop was most

noticeable in the month of March, when only 950 claims were staked

compared with 3,387 in March last year. A record number of 26,252

claims were staked in the province during 1956, and it doesn't appear

that figure will even be approached this year."

This was under the government of the people who really understood

the mining industry and who claimed to understand the needs of those

involved — the prospectors who were moving to Alaska and who weren't

staking claims in

[ Page 5551 ]

British

Columbia, because the Social Credit government's legislation was

driving them to the wall and cutting them off at the knees. That's the

government we're talking about here. Isn't it strange how the mining

companies react to this type of legislation in the same way, regardless

of which government is in office.

The member for Cariboo

(Hon. Mr. Fraser), who wasn't in office at the time, was probably

writing furiously to the Premier from the back of his truck, saying:

"Look, we can't continue this. If this continues to happen, everybody

in my riding is going to be out of work. You guys are destroying the

mining industry in this province. You're cutting them off at the knees.

It's not likely that I'll be the candidate for Cariboo in a few years,

so change your policy." He was probably doing that.

HON. MR. FRASER: You'd better quit while you're behind.

MR. SKELLY: You don't like listening to this stuff.

In the Vancouver Sun

on October 16, 1958, under the Social Credit government — the

government that understood mining and those who worked in the mining

industry — the headline reads: "Mineral Output in B.C. Dips Sharply."

"Mineral production in British Columbia during 1957 was valued at

$172,264,617, a drop of nearly $18 million from the record 1956

production of $190 million." That's almost a 10 percent reduction.

HON. MR. FRASER: Even Chris isn't even listening to you. Why don't you sit down?

MR. SKELLY: I'm reading his clippings. He doesn't have anything else to do.

What

I am trying to point out is that whenever legislation comes down in the

province of British Columbia which restricts the activities of mining

companies, imposes increased tax on the mining companies.... As the

government said in their budget speeches, sometimes we have to pay

increased taxes; sometimes we all have to tighten our belts. When that

applies to the mining industry, they react the same way as the rest of

us. They don't like tightening their belts. They don't like packing

home a smaller paycheque than they had before. They're exactly the same

as every other human being in the province of British Columbia when you

impose an additional tax on them. So they respond in this way: they say

the additional tax is going to kill the mining industry. As I said this

morning, this is one industry that's been killed and resurrected so

many times we're going to start a new religion based on it. It's

ridiculous. We'll call it the mineral majority.

I think

we're going to have to take a lot of what these people say with a grain

of salt. You can't knock them for saying that they're going to suffer,

and you can't knock them for exaggerating the amount of suffering that

they're going to do. Every taxpayer does that when he feels the pinch,

and legitimately he should. Whether it's an individual or a

property-owner who is feeling the pinch today under Social Credit or

the mining companies who were feeling the pinch under Social Credit

back in 1957 and 1958, it's legitimate that they're going to scream and

say that they're going to be done out of business. The government has

to look at this with a bit of a jaundiced eye. They've cried wolf any

number of times — in 1958, 1971 and 1973.

HON. MR. FRASER: Read 1200 Days .

MR. SKELLY:

Did you get somebody to read it to you? Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying

is that you have to look at it with a pretty cautious and critical eye.

As far as I'm concerned, the Socreds seem to have bought the mining

industry line hook, line and sinker, whether true or not. Fortunately

back in 1957 and 1958 they didn't buy it; the mining industry and the

government were able to work out their differences and a lot of those

problems were resolved — as we were in the process of doing. Afton

mines and the Teck Corp. were a clear example of the working out of

that system. How many new smelters were there under Social Credit?

any case, let's go back to Marie Taylor. Maybe I don't agree with my

own party members on Marie Taylor. If what the minister says is true —

if she is an independent worker, if she is intelligent. If she has

respect in the business field and has worked her way up to the

presidential level — then obviously we're looking at a fairly capable

person. If we are, then why did you put her in a position where she is

totally dependent on decisions of your ministry and the cabinet? If as

chairman of the B.C. Utilities Commission Marie Taylor is capable of

making independent decisions, why does she have to report back to you,

who can reject, accept, modify or throw out her decisions altogether?

If she's such a qualified, independent, capable person, why not give

her the decision-making authority? What we were looking for in this

province was an independent commission to adjudicate B.C. Hydro's rate

increases, to analyze new project development, and to look at utilities

throughout the province and make decisions with respect to energy. What

did we get? We got one that's totally dependent on what goes on behind

the closed door of cabinet. We're totally dependent on the minister's

whim.

We've got nothing new in the province of British Columbia. If Marie Taylor

were given authority as an independent chairman of the B.C. Utilities Commission,

we would have accepted it and supported it. We would have voted for it, because

that's the kind of thing we were looking for. That's the kind of thing

every citizen of this province was looking for. For once this government was

willing to trust an independent agency, as you did. We congratulated you and

we supported you when you set up the auditor-general, for example. You appointed

those people through an all-party committee of the Legislature. That's the

way to go. You appointed an ombudsman — I guess you're not too happy about

that now. That's the role of the ombudsman. If the government changes, we'll

probably not be too happy with what he says about us. But that's the role

of the ombudsman. At least you created that position through an all-party committee

of cabinet, and you gave him the independence to do his job. We voted for that.

We congratulated you for that, and we continue to do so. But in this case you

say you took a perfectly capable person who is an independent worker and respected

in the community, and then you cut her off at the knees. You won't let her

make a decision; every decision has to be made on in cabinet or at the whim

of the minister. That's not the way I view the proper employment of an expert,

independent and capable person.

wanted to take this opportunity to set the facts right and to put them

in a greater historical perspective. Let's look over the whole term of

Social Credit governments in this province, and let's look over the

whole term of the NDP governments in this province. Let's see who

claims to really understand the mining industry and who claims to

really understand the

[ Page 5552 ]

people

who operate within the mining industry. I think we've both made

mistakes; we realize it; I hope they realize it. Adjustments were made,

and adjustments will continue to be made. I notice that there's one

thing the mining industry has learned over the years: now they're not

using the same old clichés that every new tax is going to destroy the

industry and drive us to Alaska and the Yukon. Now they're willing to

sit down and discuss the problems and work out an acceptable solution

to the problems on both sides, regardless of which government is in

power. A lot of people have matured in the province of British Columbia

over the last decade or two — the mining industry, the opposition and,

I hope, this government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I want to make a couple of comments about the British

Columbia Utilities Commission. Obviously that member hasn't read the legislation.

MR. SKELLY: I've read it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

You misunderstood it then. If that member read the legislation, first

of all he would know that the British Columbia Utilities Commission —

no one person, but the commission itself — is completely independent in

its regulatory role over rate applications for B.C. Hydro, West

Kootenay Power and Light, Inland Natural Gas or Pacific Northern Gas.

There is no interference by government in the regulatory role of the

British Columbia Utilities Commission. It's the first time in the

history of this province that the British Columbia Utilities Commission

has had the responsibility for regulating B.C. Hydro's rates. It's

something that the public of British Columbia have been asking for for

years, and now finally have. It is a completely independent regulatory

function of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Secondly,

the B.C. Utilities Commission has been given a new function in this

province — one which I believe will serve the citizens of this province

well in the future — as an adviser to government in reviewing major

energy projects. I guess that comes down to where this side of the

House disagrees with the members opposite. The members opposite have a

philosophy that you set up some outside body to make government policy

and then the elected legislators can sit back, never get into any

trouble and never make any decisions while the province goes down the

tube and somebody else out there who isn't responsible to. anyone,

particularly not the electorate, makes all the policy decisions. We

don't agree with that way of doing government. We believe that because

we're elected, we have a responsibility to the public both to make

decisions and to take actions. We'll continue to govern in that way.

wish that there was one way that the members opposite could understand

that the mining industry only flourishes when the mining industry has

the opportunity to explore and develop. The member for Yale-Lillooet

(Hon. Mr. Waterland), the Minister of Forests, has spent his life in

the mining industry. I thought he put quite clearly to the members

opposite how mines get developed and found. If they don't get found,

there is no ore and there is no mining industry.

I'm sure

that other governments have made bad decisions with regard to the

mining industry — decisions which have caused a serious decline in the

opportunities for exploration to take place. If that member tells me

that that's what happened in 1953 and 1957, then I accept that that's

probably correct. All that member does is reinforce the argument that

I've made in this House that government policy can and does directly

affect mining, sometimes in very detrimental ways. He asks if the

things he was reading don't sound familiar. Yes, they do sound

familiar. The problem is that it doesn't really mater what the taxation

is in either of those scenarios — the time when the NDP was in power

and the time when, I'm told by the member, there was some restrictive

legislation brought in which caused a decline in exploration. It

doesn't really matter what the revenues are from the mines. What

matters is that the exploration doesn't get done. If the exploration

doesn't get done it takes years and years to recover from that lack of

activity. For the first time — at least that I've heard — that member

has admitted more clearly than ever that his government drove the

mining industry out of this province. He said: "We at least kept ours

in this country." That's a small comfort for those people who were out

of work when your party was in power. That's no comfort and it's not

very funny.

I was going to resist the temptation to read

from another old newspaper article, but I can't resist it any longer,

because that member has introduced into the debate some comment from

newspaper articles of the past. I'd like to just very briefly do the

same thing. I don't suppose the message has to get out to anybody who

knows. The message doesn't have to get out to the fellow that the

Minister of Forests mentioned, Mr. Ablett from Kamloops, who would have

lost his business except for the tenacity of he and his wife, who

mortgaged everything they had to keep going because they knew darn well

that the NDP would be out soon. They did. They were out. Now Mr. Ablett

has a prosperous and flourishing business again in Kamloops, thanks to

some progressive policies that allow him to do that.

I just want to read a couple of sentences from an open letter to Hon. Leo T. Nimsick which was published in the Vancouver Sun

on April 29, 1975. It was written by a fellow named Malcolm Lorimer, a

mining engineer in the province who was unfortunately unemployed

because of the policies of the former government. Unfortunately he

didn't want to go to the Yukon. He loved British Columbia, and he

wanted to stay here. So he stayed here and fought the policies of that

government, and fortunately he helped to win — he and some of the 4,000

people who stood on the front lawns of this Legislature to protest the

disastrous mining policies of that government. It was a very orderly

protest, I might add. They fought and won. They remember, and they'll

never forget.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of the items mentioned

by Mr. Lorimer in his rather lengthy letter to Mr. Nimsick are

interesting. He goes on to point out that as a result of a lot of

teamwork between governments and the industry and others over about a

decade of time, the mining industry had reached a point where it was

really flourishing in this province and about to take off. He points

out that the situation changed very quickly until it was at the point

where staking and exploration had approached a standstill. In fact it

did pretty well come to a standstill. He confirms the kinds of stories

about Mr. Ablett and his company by saying that many firms have closed

or are operating on skeleton staffs, hoping for better days. Some of

them stayed around and fought and mortgaged their homes and won. They

won't forget. He points out that geophysical firms moved away, assayers

were out of work and suppliers of goods and services throughout the

province were suffering. Investor confidence was so badly shaken that

it was virtually impossible to raise capital.

[ Page 5553 ]

Mr. Lorimer goes on to talk about prices a little bit. The members opposite

have been very forceful in saying that the problem with the mining industry

was just a matter of prices. In one sentence here Mr. Lorimer says: "If

you'd look at your own report for the year 1972, the year you assumed office"

— "you" meaning Mr. Nimsick — "you would see that the average

copper price for that year was around 45 cents a pound. Now it's 60 cents."

That's

not a decline in prices, Mr. Chairman. Gold, silver and zinc have shown

phenomenal increases, and lead and molybdenum have never been higher.

There was no decline in prices, Mr. Chairman. Somebody mentioned it was

the federal government's taxation policy of not disallowing a tax on

royalties that was the big problem. Mr. Lorimer, who incidentally has a

brother in this House, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, talks about

the royalties. "Well," said Mr. Lorimer, "if the NDP hadn't imposed its

royalty in Bill 31 in the first place, the federal government wouldn't

have been a problem." So how do you figure that one out?

Mr.

Chairman, he talks about gold mining, which should have been at its

highest level ever, and yet there wasn't one mine operating in that

three-year period in this province. The price of gold had gone up from

$20 — well, I'm not sure what it was, but it was going up rapidly.

AN HON. MEMBER: It started at $35.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, it started at $35 sometime, sure. It started at a lot less than

that a lot of years before that. What do you mean, it started at $35?

do want to bring a couple of other figures to you to try to really put

forward the thought that without exploration you don't have mining. I

want to show you what's happened since 1975, because I don't want to

dwell on the past anymore. I really like the way Mr. Lorimer closes his

letter. He said:

"In looking back over the

last two and a half years, you cannot possibly be proud of your

performance. Presiding over the decline of a once flourishing industry

must be a humbling experience. You must also be somewhat disillusioned

over the turn of events since the day about a year ago when you were

discussing Bill 31 on the Chuck Davis radio show, and said: 'Once it's

on the statutes, I think the industry will relax back and enjoy what we

have done.' The only way I can reply to that in my own impeccable

Well, that's the way the

industry feels today. They won't relax and forget and accept your

apologies for bringing in Bill 31, as that member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) has done in this House. They won't accept the Leader of the

Opposition's apologies and his promise never to do it again, because

they know very well that if you get the chance, you'll do it again in

spades.

What's happened since 1975 reflects the understanding that exploration

must go first, before you can develop mines in this province. The miners in

the mining industry, the suppliers and the workers — those workers whose lunch

buckets were empty — won't forget those years. Exploration expenditure in

this province has gone from $26 million in 1975 to $108 million last

year — an increase of 315 percent.

That's what happens when the guys go out and tramp around the hills and

find mines. Claims recorded were 11,751 in 1975, and last year they were over

72,000 — an increase of 516 percent. That's what happens when you have

a government which brings some confidence to the marketplace and to the industry

and allows the industry, with a minimum of interference, to get on with the

job and help us make a prosperous British Columbia.

MR. BARBER:

The minister advises that claims staked went up 516 percent. That

figure seems remarkably familiar too — readings from the past. It's

something like the average increase per ministry of the advertising

budget to be spent by Social Credit this year, which is up 520 percent

to $25 million.

Let's talk for a moment, if we may, about

the record. Let's examine as well what our colleague for Alberni has

pointed out on successive occasions. He's demonstrated clearly that the

value to the revenue, to the people and to the government of British

Columbia of moneys derived from mining improved magnificently during

the New Democrat administration. That's been demonstrated again and

again. The values earned by the people of British Columbia on their

assets and their resources — the mineral resource of British Columbia —

improved fantastically during the period of New Democrat

administration. He's also read into the record the complaints from the

mining industry during the first Social Credit administration, of how

the Socreds ruined that industry in this province.

I suppose

there's one thing to be said about the inevitable fights between the

prepared statistics of competing political parties in British Columbia.

I suppose there are those who will deny the reports made in Public

Accounts in the period 1972-75 of the vastly increased revenues earned

under the first New Democrat administration. The minister himself

hasn't denied it, but members of your party have again and again in

public.

MR. KEMPF: You were taxing them to death.

MR. BARBER: If we were taxing them to death, how on earth could they pay so much money and be so prosperous?

I'm

glad that the minister himself has now agreed that Public Accounts for

the province of British Columbia for the years 1972-75 were perfectly

accurate and that it is perfectly accurate to claim that the mining

industry of British Columbia made enormous profits and contributed much

of that profit — as it should, as should every industry — to all of the

people of British Columbia, who own the fundamental resource in the

first place.

There are two issues here. It's not just the

relative accuracy of the financial information and revenue figures

offered by Social Credit and by the NDP in regard to the mining

industry. I guess those things will always be debated. There's also the

issue not of accuracy but of irony. We hear from a government that

claims to be businesslike that they know what they're doing and should

be trusted to continue doing it in the mining industry. It's the issue

of irony and absurdity that also has to be drawn to the committee's

attention. It's a bit much, by way of brief comparison, to have any

government, much less this government, accuse the first New Democrat

administration of being unbusinesslike. After all, it was Social Credit

that accidentally dumped Seaboard Life Insurance Co. — by mistake — and

then had to call an emergency session of the Legislature to clear it

up. Who is this minister — and who is the party he represents — to tell

anyone that they are not businesslike either in the mining field, as

he's done repeatedly, or in any other? It wasn't the NDP that

[ Page 5554 ]

accidentally

killed Seaboard Life Insurance; it was Social Credit. It was a stupid,

ridiculous and expensive bungle by Social Credit. He has a nerve! And

we have to suffer the irony of them telling us that we weren't

businesslike? Look at the record of Social Credit compared with that of

the NDP and you'll learn who was truly businesslike in this province.

It was the NDP by a long shot. We never accidentally killed a life

insurance company.

Once again, dealing with the issue of

irony in the minister's comments and his claim that somehow his

administration was and is more businesslike in the field of mining, it

wasn't our administration that wrecked the Princess Marguerite

and cost the taxpayers $20 million to repair it. It wasn't our

administration that wrecked the mining industry either. You're the ones

who wasted $20 million on the jetfoil, the Victoria Princess , and the conversion of the Marguerite

and the Surrey. Now you tell us that you're businesslike enough to run

a mining industry in this province too. Let me give compansons.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, we've allowed a great amount of latitude in this debate

since the vote has come before us, but we really must comment on and be

relevant to the vote before us: the administrative actions of the

minister.

MR. BARBER: That's right, and one of them

is to make the claim repeatedly, no matter how unreliable it may be,

that Social Credit is to be believed as being more businesslike than

the NDP, when the record is perfectly clear that the facts command the

other conclusion.

I'll be brief making these comparisons,

and then I have a number of questions for the minister. But I wish to

finish the comparisons for the sake of the record.

It wasn't

the NDP that concocted a Vancouver convention centre and saw its first

estimate come in at $25 million, go to $52 million and now it's $90

million. It's the incompetence of Social Credit as represented by the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. FRASER:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I really believe this member is

challenging your authority. You've just warned him to stay within the

mining estimates, and he goes merrily along the way he wants. As a

member of this House I resent it, and I would like you to see that he

obeys the rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me

cite standing order 61 (2), which states that all debate in Committee

of Supply and in the House must be relevant to the vote before us. I am

sure the member is capable of doing that. We are discussing vote 65,

the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. BARBER: I'm debating in particular the ability of this committee

to take the minister seriously when he tells us that Social Credit knows how

to run the business of the people of British Columbia in the mining industry.

What I'm doing, and I only have one more illustration — I'm sure it

won't embarrass the minister as the Princess Marguerite issue embarrassed

him, properly, for two years — is pointing out the grotesque incompetence of

Social Credit. I won't refer to medicare and the way they're mishandling

that. I won't refer to this year's budget. I won't even refer to

the secret police. I'll refer, if I may, to the fact that Social Credit

is no longer credible to the people of British Columbia when they pretend that

they know how to run a business. The people of British Columbia now understand

that Social Credit, in the mining industry and every other industry which it

affects and touches, can no longer be trusted to be even half competent, half

serious or half able. Further proof of that leads me to the subject of the questions

I have for the minister.

Social Credit knew what it was doing it wouldn't have to hire Hollywood

fixers to polish its image. If this minister's policies in the field of

energy were self-evidently worthwhile, he wouldn't have to hire

Hollywood fixers to manufacture TV films and run them on BCTV. It can

also be pointed out that if Social Credit was a competent

administration that commanded public respect it wouldn't need to buy

media time to get its story across. If the minister's policies

commanded the weight and respect of public attention, why would he need

to hire Hollywood fixers to get the message across? The people of

British Columbia are rational and intelligent, perfectly well educated

and perfectly able to decide for themselves on the basis of the facts

presented to them in the usual, traditional and ordinarily adequate

ways.

What does this minister do? In his desperation to sell

a policy that can't be sold on its own merits he hires Hollywood fixers

to follow him around British Columbia to make films of his smiling face

explaining the inexplicable and defending the indefensible. If this

minister's policies had any rationale, rational people would find their

success and their value self-evident. The point is that this government

is wasting $25 million this year, including the share in this

minister's estimates, to try to explain to the people of British

Columbia why their policies should be supported. Apparently they can't

do that in this House, and apparently they don't trust the media to do

it independently and neutrally. It would seem they don't even trust

their own political party to do it either. Instead we see a government

in desperation hiring Dougie Glitter to work out of the Premier's

office, who in turn hires Hollywood fixers to do, among other things,

some kind of sell job on this minister's energy policies.

Did

you watch the TV show last week, Mr. Chairman? Nod your head if you

did. Mr. Chairman does not nod his head; I guess he didn't. Is there

any member on the government side, apart from the minister himself, who

watched last week's TV special trying to explain and defend this

government's incompetent energy policies? Would you nod your heads. Let

the record show that no one is nodding his head. Did the minister watch

his own show, or did he get it on sneak preview?

I think it

should be pointed out that this minister hired a consulting agency,

Goldfarb, and has wasted $8,000 on their services. One of the

representatives of that firm commissioned to find out whether or not

the show explained away the Social Credit energy policies said: "We

thought we might have a difficult time finding anyone who watched the

show." That's really ridiculous. It is ridiculous that we have a

government so inept and incompetent that it has to try to buy public

opinion or to buy television time, which it can't earn on its own

merits, to explain away their inept energy policies. It's ridiculous

and offensive that we have a government in British Columbia that is so

weak, so incompetent and so out of touch with public opinion that they

have to hire Hollywood fixers to try to repair the job. Who did the

hiring? Among others, the current Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

Did anyone in the public galleries

watch the special show? Would you nod your heads. Is there anyone up

there who did? Someone is nodding no, she didn't; another gentle-

[ Page 5555 ]

man is nodding no, he didn't; a third gentleman is nodding no. Did anyone watch this ridiculous television show?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could you please address the Chair and the committee.

MR. BARBER: And the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, which we do through this Legislature as well as we're able.

It's

perfectly obvious why Goldfarb admitted that they were going to have

trouble finding anyone to watch this ridiculous TV show. It is

ridiculous because of the simple fact that Social Credit desperation to

sell the unsaleable is ridiculous. If your policies in energy were any

good, people would support them on their own merits; if your policies

made any sense, the people would see the sense in them and not have to

be bought by Hollywood fixers. If the people were presented with a fair

and legitimate argument in favour of your energy policies, you wouldn't

have to waste $25 million trying to flog them.

The point is,

Mr. Chairman, that this minister is wasting at least $150,000 on his TV

special — courtesy of the Hollywood fixers — and to do what? To run a

show that no one watched. To do what? To run the show against the NHL

Stanley Cup play-offs, for heaven's sakes.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not very smart.

MR. BARBER:

Yes, really smart. Of course no one watched it. It's unwatchable in the

first place and had heavy competition in the second, but that's typical

Socred planning, Mr. Chairman.

Can I point out the obvious

again? It seems obvious to me that if your policies were any good, the

people would support them; if they were rational, rational people would

endorse them; if they made any sense at all, sensible people would see

the merit of them, and then they would sell, they would pass, and it

wouldn't cost you a nickel. It wouldn't cost you a nickel because the

intellectual, theoretical and the practical advantages of a good policy

would be self-evident to the people of B.C. The point is that your

policies aren't any good, and the people reject them. The point is that

your policies are not rational, and the people know it. The point is

that your policies don't make any sense, and the people reject them,

and they're going to reject you at the next election.

Thus

it's no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that they have to waste $25 million on

propaganda. It's no wonder that we have to see the ridiculous spectacle

of the hiring of Doug Heal and his band of Hollywood fixers and now

suffer the ignominy of having to pay $150,000 as taxpayers for the TV

special which the minister himself just commissioned.

I have

some questions for the minister: How many people watched the show? Was

it more than 12 or less than 12? If it was more than 12, how many more

than 12? Was it three, four or five more than 12? Did all of 17 people

in British Columbia watch the show? That's our calculation, Mr.

Chairman — between 12 and 17 citizens actually watched the program.

That's our best guess. How many are registered members of the Social

Credit Party? Between 14 and 17 is our figure. We'd like to know.

The

New Democratic Party officially calculates that 17 people watched the

TV show. It's our best guess that 14 of them were members of the Social

Credit Party — paid up, in good standing — and the other three were

tourists who watched it by mistake or didn't like hockey games.

Seventeen people! Now I asked the public galleries today, and they all

nodded their heads and said they hadn't watched it. I asked the

government members, and they didn't nod at all — an indication that

they hadn't watched it. Even the Chairman, who is neutral and

impartial, wasn't able to provide the information that we were seeking,

because we would have raised it to 18 if we could have. So our best

guess is that 17 people watched the show. You know, Mr. Chairman, the

minister himself has admitted that the cost of the show was $118,000.

That's a heck of a price, and shortly, when I get my calculator, I'll

work out what that was per head. But if it had 17 viewers and it cost

$118,000, that's a lot of money per viewer.

Maybe it would

have been better just to buy the viewers a new house or a car — you

know, persuade them more directly to vote Social Credit next time.

Wouldn't that have been more efficacious? I mean, it makes as much

sense. Give them all toasters or trips to Hawaii or something. I mean

if you want their votes, at least go after them directly. You know.

there are 17 people who might have watched the show. If there are more

than 17, tell us how many people watched the show. When you tell us

that, tell us on what scientific basis you provide that information.

Tell the committee as well what Goldfarb found out. We urge the

minister to be candid with this committee, to come clean with the facts

and to table undoctored, unedited and unreduced the entire Goldfarb

report — which apparently will cost $6,000 to $7,000 — to tell us how

few people watched the program, and of those few how many took it

seriously. We too would like to know.

We ask the government

through the minister to explain to us in this committee what Goldfarb

was doing and to give us Goldfarb's report. It cost $118,000 to make

it, $8,250 for B.C. Television expenses, an additional amount for

advertising, $6,000 to $7,000 for Goldfarb — all for what? Apparently

the "what" of it is to try to sell the people of British Columbia a

policy that is so weak, inept, irrational and unsuccessful that the

people of British Columbia have not spontaneously leapt to embrace it.

If it were any good, the people of B.C. would know it. They know a good

thing when they see it; that's why they support the agricultural land

reserve. The NDP didn't have to hire Hollywood fixers to sell that

policy. It was a good, sensible, progressive and farsighted policy. Now

the Social Credit Party voted against it, but nonetheless....

The

government didn't have to hire Hollywood fixers to sell the ombudsman

policy either. I'd like to reiterate what my colleague from Alberni

said: we support that; we support it strongly. We gave the government

credit for it then and we give them credit for it now. The ombudsman is

a good choice. It's a good office. It provides a necessary service.

They didn't have to hire Hollywood fixers to sell that policy, because

the worth of it was self-evident. If their energy policy had

self-evident worth, they wouldn't have to hire Hollywood fixers for

that either.

The minister has spent $118,000 on a TV show,

$8,250 to air it on Channel 8, additional thousands to advertise it,

and S6,000 or $7,000 to Goldfarb Consultants. So we guess it might

cost....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Member, I disclosed the fact that the New Democratic Party found 17 people in British Columbia

[ Page 5556 ]

who

actually watched the show — 14 were Social Credit members and three

were tourists. That being the case, I wonder if the minister could tell

us what in fact was spent on advertising this whole misadventure. How

much did it cost to take out a full-page ad in TV Guide ?

How much did it cost to take out other advertisements? What is the

total cost of advertising this program which apparently 17 people

watched? Can the minister inform us whether or not additional expenses

were incurred at Channel 8 for the production of the program?

Regarding

the production, I have further questions for the minister. Who actually

produced it, by name? Would the minister, please, table in this

committee the names and occupations of each individual who worked on

that film, the salaries they were paid and the expenses they were paid

as well? We'd like to know something about the professional

qualifications of the persons who did this show. We'd like to know

whether or not the minister intends to hire them again. Apparently the

show was a bomb, because no one watched it. Apparently it was a waste

of money, because no one took it seriously enough to watch it. So we

want to make sure that the same mistakes aren't repeated.

may be that the minister himself is the fellow personally responsible

for this mistake and that the film makers are not. Fair enough. If the

minister says so, we won't ask too much more about the professional

qualifications of the film makers. If he stands up and takes

responsibility for this Hollywood turkey, we won't blame the film

makers. But if he denies responsibility, then obviously someone is

responsible — it might be the film makers. Tell us, Mr. Minister, who

they are, what their qualifications are, how much salary they were

paid, and how much they were paid in expenses. We'd like to know; then

maybe we can take out our ad in TV Guide .

Besides, when we come to nominate the productions of Social Credit — as

we may do next year — to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and

Sciences, we want to make sure that we have the right names on the

forms when we fill them out. When we nominate the Minister of Energy

for outstanding supporting actor, we want to make sure that we've got

all the names of the producers, directors, PR guys and so on right.

When Price Waterhouse opens the envelopes they make sure all that is

done right. It's important.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

we're to take Mr. Heal's work seriously, let's go all the way. Why not

go to Hollywood directly? Next year when the New Democratic Party makes

its formal nominations, to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and and

Sciences, we want to make sure we don't omit anyone who contributed to

this masterpiece, "Energy Theatre," that no one watched. We want to

make darned sure we don't leave anyone out who really deserves the

credit. Will the minister please tell us who these people were, what

their qualifications were, what their salaries were and what their

expenses were? It's important to know that.

Can the minister

also tell us when he decided to make the film and what instructions he

provided to the film makers about the coverage he personally would

receive in it? On April 9 of this year the minister was somewhat

reluctant to take credit for this masterpiece. The Vancouver Sun

said: "McClelland was reluctant to discuss his profile in the film.

After being asked repeatedly if he is in the film, McClelland finally

admitted that 'they took some location shots at a number of mines. We

took some location shots up at the new drilling site at the Nechako

basin. I happen to get around a lot.'" Now get this, Mr. Chairman: "And

I happened to be in some of those places at the same time the film crew

was." What a happy coincidence! Maybe it was just a walk-on part; maybe

it was a cameo; maybe he was a sort of guest on the show. It's hard to

tell — a kind of guest appearance made by the minister, who happened to

be in the well-known metropolis of the Nechako basin at the same time

the film crew happened to be in the same town. Now if it was just a

walk-on appearance or a cameo, did you get the standard ACTRA rate, or

was there a special reduced rate for a cameo appearance? We need to

know about this too. I'm on the public accounts committee, and I'd like

to know so that I can prepare my questions in advance for the

auditor-general.

The minister told the Vancouver Sun

on April 9: "We took some location shots up at the new drilling site in

the Nechako basin" — population four million. "I happen to get around a

lot, and I happened to be in some of those places at the same time the

film crew was" — having lunch at the Brown Derby North.

Will

the minister tell us how it came to be that he happened to be in the

Nechako basin? Is it beside the MGM's Grand Hotel? I've never been up

there, but it's interesting to know these things.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You should go up there and find out what's happening around this province.

MR. BARBER: Oh, I will. I'd be happy to go.

Let

me quote from the final paragraph of the same article. Again, Mr.

McClelland says: "And yes, I made some statements as Minister of

Energy."

Some statements, some minister, some story! Do you

expect anyone to believe that? Do you expect anyone to believe that you

just happened to be there when the film crew happened to be and you all

got together by accident?

MR. LAUK: What did the three tourists say?

MR. BARBER: The three tourists? Well, two of them have gone back to California, and one has gone missing.

MR. LAUK: Did they bring frankincense?

MR. BARBER: Myrrh, frankincense and kodachrome.

one will believe that the minister just happened to be there until he

can give us some evidence to the contrary. Did the film crew not know

you were there? Do they just go off on their own, lurching around the

province with heavy cameras on their backs, and hope the minister would

show up by accident? Is that how they make films in your department? Is

that the way Mr. Heal runs these things? Do they just go flying off

into the northern darkness waiting for a minister, any minister, to

show up?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Have

camera, will travel. We'll talk about Mr. Leiren sometime. I mean, is

that how they did it at Kamloops when everyone showed up there? There's

the film crew greeting the Premier; was that all a happy accident also?

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't in Kamloops.

MR. BARBER: Oh, they weren't in Kamloops; they were through Kamloops.

[ Page

5557 ]

The

point is, Mr. Chairman, that this government looks increasingly

ridiculous for two reasons. First of all their policies are not

accepted by the people of British Columbia as being rational,

supportable or intellectually honest, tough-minded and reasonable. The

energy policies of this government have a narrow political objective,

and the endless, disgraceful and irresponsible Canada-bashing of this

minister is no excuse for a policy. No wonder your policies are so

unpopular and you have to resort to hiring Hollywood fixers to shore

them up with the people. If you'd stop engaging in Canada-bashing and

start engaging in rational policy-making instead, you might find a bit

more support.

The final questions I have for the minister

are on his future plans for energy specials — his future plans for

television appearances. Can the minister tell us what else he has in

mind? Can the minister tell us what other television programs he

intends to produce?

MR. LAUK: He's giving that exclusively to Photoplay .

MR. BARBER: Photoplay

has the exclusive, is that right? We won't find out for a while? It's

hard to know. But we'd like to know what other places he's going to

show up at by accident, where film crews will just happen to be, by

coincidence. We'd like to know whether or not you propose to

schedule

the next film against, for instance...

MR. KING: Barbara Walters.

MR. BARBER:

...Barbara Walters. Well, perhaps against "Archie Bunker's Place," or

some other really clever timing for which this government is so famous

when they arrange television time.

The minister will

probably not appreciate the sardonic or even sarcastic tone of these

remarks. Too bad. The people of British Columbia don't appreciate your

waste of money. The people of British Columbia reject your policies,

the fact that you have blown $150,000 on some turkey that no one

watched, that you scheduled it against the National Hockey League

play-offs, and that you used to try to explain policies even your own

backbenchers can't support.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have those

questions for the minister. I know that some of my own colleagues have

a few more comments, but I do observe that there are only three

government members in the House. In order to draw their attention to

this important issue, I move the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to film again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to introduce guests.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I've always said that there's a great deal of Merritt to my

constituency. Today I'd like to introduce the mayor of Merritt, His

Worship Jim Rabbitt, and the council of the city of Merritt to

Victoria. Would you please join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I would like to rise this afternoon and report great progress in the

field of mining in the great province of British Columbia. I'm happy to

be able to stand and support this great Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, because he has made great progress. Everybody in

this great province of ours should rise and report on the great

progress that has been made, particularly....

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, we're rising.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, you're leaving because you don't want to hear what I've got to

say, my friend. You can't stand the truth, so you're leaving the

chamber. You're all vacating your seats because, my friends, you can't

stand the truth.

I am not only happy but proud to stand in

this Legislature this afternoon and report that since those dark days

in the mining industry when the socialists were at the helm there has

been great progress made in this province. I sat here the other day,

listening with a great deal of interest to the socialist group over

there — various speakers — fudging around and trying to say that it was

the world price of minerals that drove the mining industry out of

British Columbia between the years 1972 and 1975.

Oh, Mr.

Chairman, how they laugh. It was certainly no laughing matter when they

drove the mining industry — British Columbia's number two industry —

out of British Columbia. Oh, they laugh about it and try to say that it

was the world price of minerals. The world price of minerals had

nothing to do with it, because the world price of minerals did not

affect the great increase in mining activity in the Yukon and the great

activity that took place in the Northwest Territories, in Ontario and

in other countries of the world. The fact of the matter is — and make

no mistake about, it's no laughing matter....

MR. HOWARD: Then what are you laughing for then? You're giggling.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not laughing, my friend, and I'm not giggling.

MR. HOWARD: You look like it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You hyenas over there can laugh and giggle all you want to, but it's a very serious matter.

was reading a letter recently that the leader of the socialist hordes

opposite wrote to one of the newspapers. He said the Social Credit

government is doing nothing for see-

[ Page 5558 ]

ondary

industry and nothing for manufacturing. The truth of the matter is

that, sure, resource developments in the mining industry, in the

coal-mining industry, and the great forest developments, all of those

huge developments create a vacuum and a void which allows the small

secondary manufacturers and the service industries to come in and take

advantage. That is why literally hundreds of thousands of small

businesses have been formed in this great province since 1975 — because

of the great activity in the mining industry as a result of the

policies of this government.

I want to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, that there's only one thing threatening the mining industry

in British Columbia. The only threat that hangs over the heads of the

mining industry and of all those small, secondary manufacturing

industries and all the service industries that thrive from these great

mining developments is the threat of another socialist government in

this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD:

The point of order I want to make is that right at the height of that

ridiculous oratory the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) walked

out. He left. He couldn't stand that....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, it is one thing to raise a point of order

which, in fact, is not a point of order. It is another thing, however,

to interrupt a member's speech on a point of order which the member

fully realizes is not a point of order. There is a limit. We must all

try and avoid interrupting other members on those kinds of points of

order. I would commend that to all members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I am used to that member for Skeena standing on what are not points of

order at all, trying to interrupt the speaker and trying to make the

speaker lose his train of thought. They don't want to hear the truth.

I'll tell you the truth. Because we have low-grade ore bodies and

they're difficult to find, to develop the mining industry in British

Columbia is certainly a great credit to those private entrepreneurs out

there, those people who were willing to put up their risk capital, to

take the risk to develop these mines and to find the minerals. Because

of the great creative engineering approach by our mining industry, we

indeed are able to develop those mines. It takes a great deal of risk

capital; it's a risk venture.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You wouldn't understand that, my friend. You don't know what mining is

all about. It takes risk capital, and it's a risky venture. A large

portion of that capital must flow in from outside this province.

The only threat that we have today against continuing to develop the mining

industry in British Columbia is the threat of another socialist government in

the province of British Columbia. They've tried on numerous occasions to

say that they've changed their policy. They haven't changed their policy.

They talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. They're trying

to be all things to all people. But the truth of the matter is — as witnessed

by the headlines in the Vancouver Sun last night — the same thing will happen

to this province: "Socialist Government Elected in France," "People

Losing Money on the Stock Market," "Risk Venture Will Flow Out of

France." Don't you ever forget it, Mr. Chairman, and don't let

the people of British Columbia forget it. The same thing would happen in this

province. That is why the threat hangs over the heads of the mining industry.

It's

our policies that have revitalized the mining industry in British

Columbia, not the prices of metals. The prices of metals today on the

world market are not high. They're not at an all-time low, but they're

very close to it. With the price of minerals and the rest of the world

being not in an economic recession but certainly not in boom periods,

because of the policies of this government our mining industry is doing

very well, thank you. You don't snap your fingers and bring on a mine.

It takes years of planning and millions of dollars. That mineral is

worthless in the ground. It's worthless to this generation; it's

worthless to any generation. Those socialists over there can't seem to

realize that a natural resource is not a natural resource until

millions of dollars go into the production and it is available to be

sold; only then is it a natural resource. They can't seem to get that

through their thick heads.

We've got lots of minerals in the

province of British Columbia. We haven't even scratched the surface

yet. Those minerals are not going to be found and they're going to be

to nobody's advantage unless there are policies, risk money,

entrepreneurship and engineering skills available to make them into a

worthwhile product so that they can be of some benefit to this

generation and future generations.

I don't care how they

fudge it around — the mining industry was driven out of British

Columbia not by the price of metals on the world market, but by the

policies of the socialist government, and nobody make any mistake about

that. As I said, today I'm proud to rise here in this Legislature and

support our Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, because

great progress — indeed, fantastic progress — has been made and is

being made in British Columbia's number two industry.

As I

read the headlines last night I just had to stop and think that that's

exactly what would happen in the province of British Columbia if ever a

socialist government was elected here again.

AN HON. MEMBER: A dreadful prospect.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's no laughing matter.

With

regard to mining, there are great things taking place in the coal

mining industry. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

and myself have been condemned for playing one part of the province

against another. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), in a

recent letter to a newspaper, stated that that's exactly what we were

doing. I have said, and I will say again, that because this government

brought in a proper coal mining policy there is coal mining taking

place not only in southeast British Columbia, but a great development

is taking

part in the northeast part of the province. Just today, while

the NDP are telling us that there'll be no more coal sold out of the

southeast part of the province, Fording Coal announced the signing of a

ten-year agreement to supply 350,000 tonnes per year of high volatile

coking coal to China Steel Corporation in Taiwan, the contract to begin

in April 1982. That is just one of many announcements that have taken

place since April 1981, when it was decided northeast coal would go

ahead. The socialists run around the province and say no more coal will

be sold from the southeast

[ Page

5559 ]

because we're playing one area of the province

against another. The truth of the matter is that if northeast coal had

not gone ahead, those contracts would have gone to Australia, and the

socialists would far sooner create jobs in Australia than they would in

British Columbia. That's their policy: create jobs in Australia.

MR. HOWARD: That's a lie.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

That's exactly what would happen, my friend. That's the truth, and you

know it! The socialists would far sooner create jobs in Australia than

they would in British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: You're a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The minister will take his seat. I must insist that the

member for Skeena withdraw the remark he made across the floor.

MR. HOWARD: No hesitation whatever, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about coal mining for just a moment, on

behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. We

have also been told by the opposition that we are going to flood the

market: 7.5 million tonnes of coal from northeast British Columbia is

going to flood the market.

Coal is the most abundant and the

least utilized energy resource in our domestic market. Coal represents

72 percent of our known remaining fossil supplies, but it accounts for

only 19 percent of current energy consumption. In terms of proven

resources, we have 60 times more coal than oil on an energy equivalent

basis, and over 40 times more coal than natural gas.

Mr.

Chairman, in just a moment I'll tell you why I'm telling you this.

Certainly more important is the fact that coal is cheaper than any of

the other two fossil fuels, particularly for large stationary energy

sources such as electric power generating stations. In May of 1980 the

average delivered price paid by utilities for coal came to $1.33 per

million BTU,

whereas the comparable average prices paid for oil and gas

were $4.03 and $2.12 respectively. Today that gap continues.

What

good is the coal if it's in the ground, and not accessible by rail or

road? It is of no use to us now, and it will be of no use to us in the

future unless the infrastructure is put in place so we can get it out.

What would be a better business deal than to have the export sale of a

very small fraction of that reserve pay for most of the infrastructure,

pay for the capital investment of the mines? So when we need that coal,

when Canada needs that coal, or when British Columbia needs that coal,

the export contract would have paid for the infrastructure, and paid

for it at a time when the dollar is inflating. Every year that we

hesitate and put it off, as the socialists would like us to do.... They

say it's too early for northeast coal; it should be for some future

generation. I don't know who's going to determine what the future

generation is. Hold it off! They wanted to hold off the great power

development. We'd have had a brownout in British Columbia.

Mr.

Chairman, the ironic part of it is that that socialist group over there

are against everything today, the same as they have been for the last

30 years in this province: against this, against that, against

anything. I don't know where they think the tax dollars are going to

come from to pay the social benefits the people of this great province

enjoy today.

Coal can be mined, transported and used safely,

without significantly degrading our environment. The technology and the

know-how to achieve these objectives has clearly been demonstrated.

Sufficient laws are in place to ensure that both the mining and the

burning of the coal to create energy are arranged so the environment is

protected.

I would say that in addition to easing our

balance of payments problem by replacing oil in many applications and

thereby reducing our need for imports, coal can also make a very

positive contribution by becoming an export commodity. Our balance of

payments would be helped. That's why British Columbia is such a great

corporate province and called a good corporate citizen. We're helping

Canada. We will add billions through northeast coal to balance our

trade deficit because of the imports. That's why northeast coal is such

a good deal.

In 1980 the world coal trade was some 240

million tonnes of coal, including both coking and steam coal. Of this

figure, 170 million tonnes were moved by sea. It is impossible to move

coal by sea unless you have a port and the facilities to load the coal

on ships. You can have all the coal in the world and all the railway

transportation systems in the world, but if you don't have a port you

can't sell the coal. What do we have here, again? Northeast coal is a

catalyst to ensure that a great port will be built at Prince Rupert,

and to put Canada a little bit further into the world trading of coal.

That is just a byproduct of the policies of this government. Looking

into the future, planning and selling are some of the things that that

group over there are not capable of. They never will be capable of them.

1990 that figure of 170 million tonnes of coal moving by sea will

increase to 240 million. By the year 2000, it will probably triple,

largely due to the world demand for coal. Yet the socialists would have

you believe that there is no market for coal. They are short-sighted.

What did we do, Mr. Chairman? We did our studies, homework and

planning. We didn't come out six days before an election like the

socialists did in 1975, trying desperately to grab votes by announcing

that northeast coal was going to go ahead. Oh, they were going to have

northeast coal go ahead. They had done no planning. They had done no

studies. They had no markets. But, oh, in 1975 the socialists stood up

on a platform saying: "Northeast coal will go ahead." Today, five years

later — after all of the planning, studies and detailed engineering —

the market's captured. We announced northeast coal and the leader of

the socialist group went on television and said: "Northeast coal must

be stopped." Oh, yes. It was great for them in 1975, just before the

election, to come out and announce that northeast coal was going to go

ahead. No wonder the people of this province don't trust that socialist

group over there.

There will be a market for our coal and

minerals because one of the policies of this government has been: come

and invest your money, bring in your risk capital and invest it — parts

of it — in our mining industry, in our pulp and paper industry and in

other industries in the province, but bring a market with that

investment dollar. That's exactly what is happening in the great

province of British Columbia. Bring in the risk capital. Bring in a

market. There will be a great demand for our coal. But by far the most

important consideration for the countries that need our coal, and one

which is of grave concern to them, will be the ability of the major

coal-

[ Page 5560 ]

producing

countries — and I refer to the United States of America, Australia,

South Africa and, indeed, Canada — to supply the demand. We have the

coal, there's no doubt about that. But we can't supply the demand

unless we have the infrastructure, the highways, investment by the

private sector in the mines, the railroads and the port facilities.

There's a market out there.

We're just selling a very small

fraction of our known reserves. By selling that small fraction we will

be able to pay for most of the infrastructure, which will be there for

generations to come, so that we can facilitate additional sales. Last

year the United States had sales for an additional 10 million to 15

million tonnes of coal. They couldn't sell it, Mr. Chairman. Do you

know why they couldn't sell it? Because they didn't have the

transportation or the port facilities to get it loaded on the ships.

That is why it is so necessary that we build up our transportation

systems and expand our port facilities, which is just another side

benefit of opening the northeastern part of our province.

you look into the future, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of reasons

why coal will continue to be in demand. One of them certainly is the

problem that we're having worldwide. We call it the nuclear slippage.

Many nuclear plants are being delayed and many are put back on the

shelf. That source of energy will not grow; it creates a demand for

coal. Oil prices have doubled since 1979 and there is no relief in

sight. That's certainly another reason for the Polish situation; Poland

had been a big supplier of coal to the world markets. Another reason is

the inability of China to become a major coal exporter. The shortfall

in coal supply on a global basis is staggering, rising from some 20

million tonnes in 1980, to 50 million to 60 million tonnes in 1985, and

over 100 million tonnes in 1990, and so on. Mr. Chairman, the

socialists would have you believe that there is no market for our coal

or that we are flooding the market.

I'll tell you, Mr.

Chairman, the only threat we have to our coal mining industry, the only

threat we have to our mining industry and the only threat we have to

the future of our petroleum industry — major resource developments

without which is created a void and a vacuum for our fabricating

industries, for our small manufacturing industries and for our service

industries — is the threat of the return of a socialist government to

the province of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, I'm just going to be very quiet and very short. The debate

has been a long one and I've missed most of it, which is perhaps an

advantage and perhaps a disadvantage.

There is a problem in

terms of confidence in the province of British Columbia. There is the

deliberate attempt — and I have to say, on the part of the ministers

opposite — to rewrite the history of what's happened in this province.

I don't say that the years 1972 to 1975 were the best that we can ever

achieve in this province, but they were very good in terms of the

expansion in the production of minerals of all kinds — and by that I

mean copper, zinc, molybdenum, coal, oil and natural gas. The figures

in those years have been stated and should be put back on the record.

The gain as shown from government publications of the Ministry of Mines

was 114 percent in the total value of the production in those elements

within three years. That record was better than the record from 1975 to

1980 where the production rose, it happens, by 114 percent in five

years.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

If you look at the figures from the Economic Review

of the province of British Columbia, you see that capital investment in

British Columbia showed a growth rate between 1972 and 1975 which was

probably as high as in any period in the history of British Columbia.

The minister keeps saying: "You must explore to find new mines."

Certainly we all recognize that; that's very obvious. And the new

grub-staking legislation that we put on the books in the years 1972 to

1975 is still largely what you have today in terms of the greater

incentives for people to go out and explore.

I have to admit

there is a negative factor, Mr. Chairman, and I regret that it is the

case. I'll just say this and sit down. Not only from the years 1972 to

1975 were the prominent Social Credit speakers crying doom and gloom

about the mining industry and destroying investment confidence, but

they're doing that today. The minister has just taken his place, and

sat down with the ringing statement that the return of a

social-democratic government in British Columbia would kill off

investment confidence and destroy the mining industry all over again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Right. What happened in France?

MR. MACDONALD:

You say right, and you rewrite history. I'm not going to raise my

voice. I've listened to this debate, and listened to these people go

out and misrepresent the past throughout the province of British

Columbia. I'll try and keep myself as calm, cool and collected about it

as I can. But I say this: at some time in the future there may be a

social democratic government in this province. There's one in France,

there's been one in Germany, and in other parts of the world. There's

been one in Saskatchewan, which is very successful in terms of mineral

production. You get up and say: "If that happens the mining industry

will be killed." You are therefore again crying doom and gloom as far

as your province is concerned. For the sake of your own political

fortunes you say that any other government will destroy confidence.

MR. BRUMMET: Your policies will.

MR. MACDONALD: They didn't in the past, Mr. Member.

MR. BRUMMET: They did.

MR. MACDONALD:

No, they didn't. Look at the figures. Be honest and fair for once. Look

at the figures and look at the results. Can you honestly get up and say

that there have been two greater accomplishments in the mineral field

than the Afton smelter outside Kamloops, which was certainly initiated

in the NDP period.... The other one — and I don't say that we're the

greatest thing that ever happened in the world — is the British

Columbia Petroleum Corporation. Both of those little babies that

started in the NDP years, particularly the Petroleum Corporation have

brought great benefit to the province of British Columbia — so great

that you didn't turn your backs on it. Natural gas and petroleum are

part of the mining scene, and those are accomplishments that can never

be knocked so far as this province is concerned.

[ Page 5561 ]

say to you that when you go out there and say, "Any other government

but us will destroy and kill off the mining industry and destroy

investment confidence," you're putting the welfare of your own

political hides against the welfare of the province which you ought to

be serving. From 1972 to 1975 you did that on such a scale that, yes,

for a long period of time you scared off new prospecting. I remember it

very well. The author of that scare is sitting right over there and

smirking, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I'll

debate with you anywhere in the province on these points. You were part

of the problem, as an opposition, with your irresponsible criticism and

misrepresentation of the facts, Mr. Minister. And today you are putting

the welfare of your political hide over the welfare of the province of

British Columbia.

Look at the figures and let's see who can

compete in this chamber for the best resource development policy. Put

your figures up against ours. That's fair, competitive debate. But

let's get away from this knock, knock, knock and saying: "Oh, if we

happen to lose office everything will go to pieces." It isn't true, you

know it isn’t true, and you should get the politics out of this thing

and see who has the best plans to develop this province as it should be

developed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can't let that little

talk by the ex-Minister of Energy pass me by, because I think I hit a

sore spot. He mentioned the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation as

one of the great crowning jewels when he was Minister of Energy — that

it did great things for this province. The British Columbia Petroleum

Corporation didn't do anything except collect the same royalties that

would have been brought into the government anyway. The Petroleum

Corporation was set up so that they could take over and do their own

drilling, exploration and production, and probably have a string of gas

stations around called Barrett's Pumps. That's what the Petroleum

Corporation was set up to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Sure, it collected the royalties in a different manner than we were

collecting them, but it didn't bring any additional revenue into the

province.

That minister over there, when he was Minister of

Energy.... As I've told him before, he should work for Hollywood,

because he created more ghost towns in the Peace River country than you

could shake a stick at. I was MLA representing that area. and you

didn't dare get on the road between British Columbia and the Alberta

border because you'd have been run over by oil rigs leaving the

province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh, production, sure. The wells drilled by the previous government....

He stands up and brags about mineral production. My lord, they should

have sold minerals during their period, because in 1973-74 the prices

for minerals were the highest in the history of the world. Not only

were the prices high, there was a demand, and certainly the mining

companies were selling their minerals, because the mines were in

production. But what the gentleman who just spoke fails to tell you

about, which is the truth, is the investment in new mines — prospectors

going out and engineers leaving. That cannot be denied, as I said just

a few moments ago standing in this House. You don't snap your fingers

and bring on a mine. It has to be explored for and proven out. That is

the portion of the industry that they drove out of this province. They

did drive them out of this province.

MR. MACDONALD: Look at the figures. You never quote figures.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The figures are there. Claims stakes are down. Investment in mines is

down. I'll quote you the figures, my friend. They're there and you know

them.

MR. MACDONALD: You never do. Politics and scare tactics — that's all you're worth.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman. that man over there can yack and yack all he wants to.

The mining industry and those people involved in the mining industry —

the engineers and the prospectors — know the truth.

MR. MACDONALD: I'n trying to read a book. Will you shut up?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No matter how many speeches that member makes he can't cover up the

truth. Young people in this province who, want to become involved in

the mining industry — mining geologists — are going back to school

because there were no jobs. We had established in this province

probably the best mining technology and competence to be assembled

anywhere in the world.

I was on a plane flying to Australia

last fall. Sitting in front of me was a Canadian. He says: "Who are

you?" I told him who I was. He said: "I used to live in British

Columbia. Yes, I was a mining, geologist in British Columbia. During

the Barrett days I had to go elsewhere to seek employment. That's why

now I'm running a mine in southern Australia." I forget the exact

location. The mine and his company are employing hundreds of people.

You

know, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, you can make all the speeches you

want to, but you'll never shove that political rhetoric of yours down

the throats of the mining industry, because they know better. Look at

Kamloops. I remember going into Kamloops in early 1976. It was

practically a ghost town, because Kamloops thrives on the mining

industry. I hope those people in Kamloops will forget it was

practically a ghost town. Look at it today: houses, construction,

prosperous people, opportunities for the young people and jobs created

mainly by the mining industry, but also created by the cattle industry,

because of our policy of going in there and irrigating and growing

several crops in one year. It was a great policy of this government.

just couldn't sit here and allow that minister over there to say there

was no gas in the Grizzly Valley and we should never build a pipeline.

MR. MACDONALD: I didn't say anything of the kind.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh. you didn't say anything of the kind. When we announced the Grizzly

Valley pipeline, what did they say? "Don't build a pipeline. There's no

gas down there." That's a prime example of what I'm talking about.

There was gas down there. but there would never be

[ Page 5562 ]

any more because nobody is going to put hundreds of millions of dollars into

drilling holes and doing exploration if the stuff is going to stay there forever.

So we said: "We'll build a pipeline." What did I predict? I predicted

that after we would announce that we would build a pipeline, there would be

more exploration, more drilling and more reserves proved up. That's exactly

what happened. But the NDP did not want the project to go ahead. They had the

opportunity to build that pipeline when they were government. They said: "No,

there's no gas down there." Yet that member stands up and brags about

the NDP, the socialists, their mining policies and their petroleum policies.

I could use some terminology to describe it, but it's unparliamentary.

MR. MACDONALD: You're just playing politics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'll tell you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East who says that I'm just

playing politics — you go out there and meet those miners the same as I

did in the Hotel Vancouver after you brought in Bill 31 and tell me I'm

playing politics. I'm stating the truth and you well know it. You go

out there, my friend, and talk to the mining industry and the petroleum

industry. Political, nothing! Facts of life, my friend!

MR. LEA: Bring your figures in, then.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, I'll bring the figures in. We've got lots of figures, but I don't

have to bring the figures in to tell the mining industry, because they

know.

MR. MACDONALD: Scare, scare, scare.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, maybe so, but it's factual. It's time the people of this province were told the facts.

It's

a sad and sorry history of the three great industries in this province.

If these weren't the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources I could talk about what happened in numerous other

industries, like the forest industry. Now, because of policies and

faith in the future of our policies and in this government, indeed

there is economic development — planned economic development and

projects on the drawing board. I'm using scare tactics, but I know what

would happen if there was a socialist government elected in this

province.

MR. MACDONALD: You'd lose your job.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Those plans for development would be put on the shelf, that's what

would happen. No, I won't lose my job; not as long as there's a threat

of the socialists around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members,

just before recognizing the next member, there has been quite a bit of

skirting of comments that might indicate to the committee that another

member in the committee — this has come from both sides of the

committee — is misrepresenting the facts. It's common for the committee

to have to accept two contrary opinions, but one cannot be

unparliamentary to the degree where he would indicate that another

member is wilfully misrepresenting facts to the committee.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I have to respond to the plea from the other side to give the facts

that the minister was talking about. I'd just like to read them into

the record, because they're important. I understood the member for

Vancouver East to indicate that because of the grubstake program that

the New Democratic government brought in, mineral claims were — I don't

know if he used the term "at record levels," but he certainly indicated

that they were very healthy, to paraphrase him.

MR. MACDONALD: I said that that's the basis of a good foundation of growth in mineral exploration in B.C.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The member said that his grubstake program was the foundation of growth

for mineral exploration. I'd just like to read to you about that

growth. In 1971 new mineral claims were 58,000. In 1972 they went up to

79,000. Then something started to happen. In 1973 they went down to

36,000. In 1974 they went down to 17,000. In 1975 they went down to

12,000. That's a terrible decline in the numbers of new mineral claims

recorded in this province at a time when that member says they were

building a solid foundation for growth. That kind of growth we can't

stand.

I'd like to point out what happened. We hit bottom in

1975 with 11,751 new mineral claims recorded. In 1980 we recorded

72,349 new mineral claims. That's an increase in five years of 516

percent. They want the facts. I can't help it. I must give them to them.

The

member credits the B.C. Petroleum Corporation with doing the same kind

of thing. What happened to exploration in the oil and gas industry? The

oil and gas industry isn't any different than the mining industry,

because if you don't drill holes and look for it, you don't find it and

don't have gas wells and a resource. As long as it's still in the

ground it may be a resource someday, a hundred or a thousand years from

now, but it isn't a resource today.

What happened in the

exploration for oil and gas because of that great policy the previous

government put in place? In 1971 we had 201 wells drilled in this

province. In 1972 we had 225. Then something strange started to happen.

Things started going down instead of up, not only in the mining

industry but in the oil and gas industry as well. In 1973 we were down

to 178 wells. In 1974 we were down to 148 wells. In 1975 we were down

to rock bottom: there were 82 wells drilled. There was a steady decline

throughout the entire time that party was in office.

Again,

what's happened since? That decline in exploration came at the time of

OPEC, when prices were being forced up to incredible levels — which no

one in the world had expected. Did we take advantage of those

incredible increases in prices? No way. We were declining on a steady

basis. I'm happy to say that as a result of progressive government

policy, the increases started almost immediately — the year after the

rock-bottom figure of 82. In 1976 there were 190 wells drilled in this

province; the next year, 340; the next year, 393; the next year, about

400. As a matter of fact, we see the results today of how quickly

disastrous and foolish government policies can affect a resource

industry. Today we see exploration leaving British Columbia again, not

because of provincial government policy but because of a foolish

federal government policy. The point is that foolish policies have

disastrous and very speedy effects on the economy of a resource-based

province. I'm very happy that we don't have those foolish policies with

us any more and that we don't

[ Page 5563 ]

stand the chance, at least provincially, of seeing those drastic declines again.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to address you again. The member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said: "Give us the facts. Give us the figures."

The member f