1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1149 ]

CONTENTS

An Act to Repeal the Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 49).

Mr. Gibson. Introduction and first reading — 1149

Pacific North Coast Native cooperative Loan Amendment

Act,

1975 (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Levi. Introduction and first reading — 1149

Oral Questions

IBEW strike notice. Mr. Phillips — 1149

Criticism of Columbia River treaty. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 1149

Export of surplus chips. Mr. Fraser — 1149

Grant to strata body. Hon. Mr. Nicolson answers —

Lifting of mill rate limits. Mr. Curtis — 1150

Cost of Newton land purchase. Hon. Mr. Lorimer

answers — 1150

Chlorine gas in Georgia Strait. Mr. L.A. Williams

— 1150

Public service bargaining and contingency funds.

Mr. Morrison — 1151

ICBC money to motor vehicle branch. Mr. Chabot — 1151

ICBC floor space in Royal Centre. Mr. Schroeder —

General manager for Marguerite operation. Mr.

Gorst — 1152

Granting of Kamloops request for industrial land.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1152

Bicycle provision on Burrard Inlet ferry. Mr.

Gibson — 1152

B.C. aircraft testing inertial navigation system.

Mr. Morrison — 1152

Committee of Supply: Department of Consumer Services

estimates

On vote 33.

Hon. Ms. Young — 1153

Mr. Phillips — 1154

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1155

Hon. Ms. Young — 1155

Mr. Schroeder — 1156

Hon. Ms. Young — 1156

Mr. Chabot — 1156

Department of Economic Development estimates

On vote 34.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1157

Mr. Chabot — 1157

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1161

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1164

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1166

Mr. Phillips — 1168

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1168

Mr. Phillips — 1169

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1170

Mr. Fraser — 1171

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1174

Mr. Gibson — 1175

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1176

Mr. Smith — 1176

Mr. Chabot — 1179

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1184

Appendix — 1184

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

would ask the assembly this afternoon to join me in welcoming a

group of secondary school students from Hope, with their

teacher, Mr. Keith Lindstrom. I ask you to join me in welcoming

them.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today, accompanied by Frank and Audrey Gordon and

Gladys Denham of North Vancouver, is Mr. Jesse Nakooka of

Hawaii who has gladdened the hearts of thousands of British

Columbians with his singing on the island of Maui at a place

which in the nature of the non-commercial interests of this

Legislature I will not name. I would ask the House to make him

welcome and extend their aloha.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, today in the gallery

from the beautiful country of Shuswap we have the people from

Chase council. I would like to introduce to the House Mayor

Brown, Alderman Beattie, Alderman Humphries, and Alderman

Atkinson. I would like the House to welcome them to

Victoria.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, it's a

rare privilege and pleasure for me to have in the House one of

my uncles watching the proceedings. I would like the House to

join me in welcoming my uncle, Bob Nicolson.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon

there will be a class from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School at

Courtenay attending the session. They will be accompanied by their

teacher who is a brother of the MLA for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). Mr. Ray

Skelly will be with them. I would like the House to welcome them now

please.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO REPEAL

THE MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 49,

An Act to Repeal The

Mineral Royalties 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.

PACIFIC NORTH COAST NATIVE

CO-OPERATIVE LOAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Levi presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative

Loan Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 19 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.

IBEW STRIKE NOTICE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to direct a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources — also as a director of British Columbia Hydro.

Could the Minister confirm to the House that the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has served 72-hour strike

notice on B.C. Hydro.

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

Resources): My information is not up to date, Mr. Speaker. It was

my understanding that the union could very well do so. Whether that

has, in fact, taken place…it may be so. I would have to check first.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Minister then advise the House tomorrow if this is so? Would he

get himself up to date and advise the House?

CRITICISM OF COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Yesterday, at the very

end of the question period, he replied to a question of mine.

I'd like to ask a supplementary to it today. Did the concern

over the adverse criticism of the Columbia River treaty, which

the Minister told us yesterday was shown in the minutes of B.C.

Hydro, find expression in any letter or document issuing

instructions or suggesting instructions or directing

advertising either for or against newspapers or radio stations

critical of the treaty?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd have to take that as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

EXPORT OF SURPLUS CHIPS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. When the Premier was in

the Cariboo

[ Page 1150 ]

about three weeks ago, he was asked by the forest

industry

there to allow the export of surplus chips. He replied that he

would take it up with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources on his return to Victoria. My question to the

Minister is: have you had discussions with the Premier about

this policy?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been

preliminary discussions and the matter is being actively looked

at by the Forest Service.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When will you be

announcing the new policy?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I suppose the proper answer is "in

due course," Mr. Speaker. I should note that I'll be in

the Cariboo next week and will meet with the local operators as

well, and I will discuss the matter from their point of view

before we make any decision.

GRANT TO STRATA BODY

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): A brief answer to

the question asked by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) yesterday: $18,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister when this grant of

$18,000 to the B.C. Association of Strata Corporations was

handed over to them?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, the press release, Mr. Member, was

dated June 5, and I think that it would be some time around

that time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, may I ask as a further

supplementary whether the office for which this grant was

intended has been established yet?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, if you want some idea of how

these funds were spent…or what you're leading up to on this….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The grant, Mr. Speaker, to refresh the

Minister's memory, was for $18,000 to the B.C. Association of

Strata Corporations to establish an office, and it was given

last June, I guess. Fair enough. I just wonder whether the

office has been established.

LIFTING OF MILL RATE LIMITS

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

Municipal Affairs. With regard to

section 206 of the Municipal Act,

which among other things, Mr. Speaker, sets mill rate limitations for

various types of municipalities, dealing with general purposes, debt

and other classes: may I ask if the Minister has received requests from

any municipality or the UBCM that the mill rate limits be lifted — that

is, that the ceiling be taken off for the 1975 taxation year?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, we

have received requests from the UBCM. I don't believe we have

received any direct requests from any specific municipality. We

will be presenting to the Legislature some legislation in

regard to this problem.

COST OF NEWTON LAND PURCHASE

HON. MR. LORIMER: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to answer a question the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands asked some time ago as to the cost of some land

purchased in Newton. The total sum paid was $217,146.60, and

that includes the land plus easements over two separate pieces

of property.

LIFTING OF MILL RATE LIMITS

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary on the question I first raised.

I thank the Minister for the answer to the other question. The

Minister is telling the House, therefore that a number of

municipalities see that ceiling looming this year; therefore,

something must be done for this year?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, there will have to be something done

this year. Some of them are at their maximum at the present

time and they will be really strapped unless there's some

action brought before the House to deal with this.

CHLORINE GAS IN GEORGIA STRAIT

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. With respect to the tank cars carrying caustic

chlorine which were lost en route to Powell River, a press

report this morning indicates that those tank cars have been

located and there's some doubt as to whether they're to be

raised. I wonder if the Minister could advise whether his

department, in particular the Pollution Control Board, has made

any studies to determine whether or not there is a danger of

leakage of chlorine gas from those cars either now or in the

future and whether his department will be taking any action

with respect to the raising of those cars.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as the House no doubt is

aware, we did request the federal government to continue their

activities with respect to the search for those cars. The Member for

[ Page 1151 ]

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) joined with myself in

making that

request. So we're pleased that this activity has been

productive.

I would have to take as notice the question of technical

matters in relation to PCB.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could the Minister advise the House if any

simple tests of water surrounding the area in which the tank

cars were found have been done to see if there has been any

leakage?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of any, Mr. Speaker.

However, as the Members I'm sure are aware, it is an area of

federal jurisdiction.

PUBLIC SERVICE

BARGAINING AND CONTINGENCY FUNDS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Provincial Secretary. I would like to say how pleased we

are to see him back again and looking so well. Could the

Minister advise the House if any bargaining contracts have been

concluded with any of the civil service units and, if so, which

ones they are?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Last week, Mr. Member,

on the 13th, the last of the general union components was

completed. I shall be making some comments tomorrow or Friday

at the conclusion, as I promised some time ago, with the 13

components and the general union. All of the components in

clause 4(b) — those are nurses and the healing arts — have been

concluded a long time ago. That leaves us now with just the

licensed professional group, and bargaining is continuing. I

would not be entirely straightforward to the Member if I didn't

say there were some difficulties.

MR. MORRISON: In view of the fact that we are in estimates

at this moment and one of the very vital parts of the estimates

is the supplementary funds required, could we ask the

Provincial Secretary if he would file with the House as early

as possible that information, because it is vital for our

discussion?

HON. MR. HALL: I have no objection to filing anything in the

House other than, as I say, the fact that most of it's filed

already in the form of orders-in-council.

While the Members raise the point, I've taken the

opportunity this morning of reading Hansard

and seeing

the debate of the opposition which is taking place on what is

called contingent funds — salary increases, I really think the

opposition is misleading itself and nobody else regarding the

debate on that item. The contingent liabilities that are

referred to in the estimates are frankly the same kind of thing

that's been in the estimates for years and years and years, and

must obviously cover that period of time following the

completion of the contract which has been signed that the

Member makes reference to.

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

question raised was about these funds that are referred to in

the estimates, and I think the answer would relate to that, I

presume.

ICBC MONEY TO MOTOR VEHICLE BRANCH

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications. What contribution, grant or sum

of money has ICBC allocated or will allocate to the motor

vehicle branch for services rendered during the first year of

operation of Autoplan?

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

It seems to me that I answered a question similar to that on the order

paper last week. Yes, I'm quite sure I answered a question similar to

that on the order paper, but I'll check and see what the answer is.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister is taking it as notice?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

ICBC FLOOR SPACE

IN ROYAL CENTRE

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the

Minister of Transport and Communications in his role as

president of ICBC. How many floors of the Royal Centre building

are presently occupied by the Insurance Corp.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's either 10 or 11, I'm not sure which.

That's been public information for a long time. I announced

that. You just don't listen.

MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister also say how much of an

increase this is over the space that was originally anticipated

at the inception of the corporation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not any more than two floors.

MR. SCHROEDER: Has this expansion been provided for in the

budget of the corporation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, everything's provided for in the

budget. You know that.

MR. SCHROEDER: It would be nice to see the

[ Page 1152 ]

budget. What is the annual rent or lease cost of

the space

that is now being utilized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think if you'll check the Votes and

Proceedings last year you'll find all of the information….

MR. SCHROEDER: No, no, no. Last year was for the original

number of floors.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well it's a five-year contract.

MR. SCHROEDER: Could you tell us what the amount is for the

total space now being utilized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'll check that answer, but I'm

quite sure that it included the additional space. But you know

what most of it is. It's in the Journals and reports of

last year. What is it? What was the figure?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

GENERAL MANAGER FOR

MARGUERITE OPERATION

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): To the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources: Could he advise us…?

Interjections.

MR. GORST: You might learn something.

Interjections.

MR. GORST: Could the Minister advise of any up-to-date

staffing requirements with the Princess Marguerite for the

operation? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm very pleased that the question was

asked, Mr. Speaker, (laughter) and I'm also pleased to announce

that Mr. Harry Tyson, the former manager for B.C. Coastal

Steamships, will be the new general manager with respect to the

Marguerite operation in the Inner Harbour in Victoria. He is an

outstandingly qualified gentleman in the field.

GRANTING OF KAMLOOPS

REQUEST FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. I

promise you it has not been teed up in advance.

Could I ask him whether, in his capacity as a member of the

Environment and Land Use Committee, he can tell us if the

Kamloops city request to have 400 acres of what is now

classified as farmland put to industrial use been granted or

not? It was promised by today.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think this is with respect to the hog

farm location on the eastern side of Kamloops. The matter was

considered by the committee and the Member for Kamloops (Mr.

G.H. Anderson) has raised the matter on numerous occasions with

myself. I believe there will be a recommendation to cabinet.

The actual determination of the category and the designation

will have to be determined by order-in-council.

BICYCLE PROVISION ON

BURRARD INLET FERRY

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if any progress

has been made with the very laudable thought of providing for

bicycles on the new Burrard Inlet ferry.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, we're still at the same point we were

about two weeks ago.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Minister like representations from bicycle-using groups? Would

that be helpful to him?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think they'd better get pretty

active.

B.C. AIRCRAFT TESTING

INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEM

MR. MORRISON: My question is addressed to the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Could the Minister advise the

House if the Department of Environment, which is a federal

government department, has used a British Columbia aircraft to

test a system? I think it's called an inertial navigation

system.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): The inertia is over

there. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not aware. It could have happened; we

cooperate with everyone. I'll check and find out.

Orders of the day.

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

[ Page 1153 ]

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

CONSUMER SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 33: salary contingencies, $673,863.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Chairman, I would like to give some further explanation on vote

33 and how it is made up, and also to offer an apology to the

Members of the Committee.

Yesterday toward the end of the time for debate we were

discussing vote 33 and its relationship to the following items:

the number of permanent positions presently in the department;

the number of so-called temporary-continuous positions which

are expected to become permanent positions during this fiscal

year; the number of new permanent positions for which

application will be made; the amount provided for salary

increases in respect to all positions arising, for example,

from collective bargaining decisions. I agree that these items

are at the heart of vote 33, and I wish to speak to them in

more detail.

At the outset, however, I wish to tender my apology to this

committee since I inadvertently misled its Members yesterday in

discussing a couple of these items. I'm afraid that I was still

feeling the after-effects of travel since I and my Deputy had

just arrived the previous day from a conference and study trip

to the Antipodes. There was certainly no intention on my part

to mislead the Members; it was purely inadvertent. I will now

turn to a clarification of my comments respecting vote 33.

Since the number of staff positions is important to vote 33,

I would like to begin with the first item previously noted,

namely permanent staff positions presently in effect in the

department. These staff positions are listed under vote 32 and

were established by order-in-council 210, dated January, 1974,

which established 38 positions. Order-in-council 2259 of July 4

last year established positions for our debtors assistance

division in the number of 22. Order-in-council 3116 of

September of last year were positions that were transferred

from the Department of Health to my department and the

cemeteries division. There were four positions there.

Four other positions were contained in last year's estimates

and were approved by the House. However, the order-in-council

is still outstanding. These positions are considered as

established positions and are now being filled or are filled.

They consist of two trade rules officers and two clerk-stenos 2

in the Deputy Minister's office, for a total of four.

These make 68. These are the 68 positions that correspond

with the figures listed in vote 32.

The temporary assistance in vote 32 provides for four part-time

service aides in Victoria, two part-time consumer service aides in

Vancouver, two part-time aides in Kamloops, two part-time aides in

Prince George, two

full-time consumer service assistants in Vancouver, two

part-time clerks for distribution of information materials and

our Pearson Hospital group who do the monitoring of advertising

on radio/television and in the press.

There are additional amounts of $30,000 estimated for

overtime, and an additional $15,000 of vacation relief, work

overload and et ceteras.

Therefore our present staff is 68 people. We have on staff — if you

want these outlined person by person, office by office

or designation by designation — 15 temporary-continuous people

who are now working with the department. They will become

permanent employees and are included in vote 33.

In addition, we plan to recruit new staff during the coming

year which we need because of the expanding nature of the

department, including five positions for our new office that we

are anticipating. This amounts to 13 people. So in addition to

the 68, we have our temporary continuous, numbering 15 people,

and the 13 people we intend to hire, which will bring the total

department complement up to 96.

The salaries are broken down in this manner. The

temporary-continuous salaries for staff are $128,362. Salaries

for anticipated new staff positions are $173,488. The salary

contingencies providing for salary increases due to collective

bargaining agreements are as follows: for the staff now filling

established positions, plus figures calculated for the

temporary assistance, $1,009,624; for staff in the Minister's

office, $50,296.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's got to be under general

administration.

HON. MS. YOUNG: This is salary contingencies, because at the

time we had no idea what….

MR. PHILLIPS: $1,009,624?

HON. MS. YOUNG: For staff now filling established positions,

plus figures calculated for temporary assistance.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, that is wrong. Talk to your assistant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Well, just let me finish. For the planned

new staff positions, salaries are estimated at $173,488, and

for staff now considered temporary-continuous, $128,362, for a

total of $1,361,760. A contingency of approximately 25 per cent

of that amount is $350,833, and that brings the total vote,

listing all of these items, of $652,683. I hope that clarifies

it.

[ Page 1154 ]

In the contingency portion the $350,000, approximately,

covers not only the collective bargaining increments; it would

also take care of longevity increases, et cetera, and it would

take care of those things that are of a contingent nature that

you simply do not know are going to occur. So you always, as

you know, lay aside sums for the unexpected problems that

arise. That is what is included in those figures. I hope that

explains it.

Once again, I render my apologies to the House because I did

give them wrong information last night. By that hour of the

evening my Deputy and myself were on tomorrow-at-noon time

physically, so we weren't quite with it. Thank you.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to thank

the Minister for her apologies and say that I am sorry that she

wasn't feeling well. However, I imagine that the trip to down

under was necessary. I presume it was necessary. I haven't

heard really why it was necessary at this particular time while

the House is in session. However, I am appreciative of her

apology.

However, Mr. Chairman, if these figures were known prior to

the estimates being tabled in this Legislature, and if the

Minister and her Deputy knew that the staff was going to go to

96…. I accept her apology for misleading me last night when

I asked specifically if she intended to hire during the coming

year more than the 68 persons which are tabled in the

estimates. I appreciate her apology for saying that she misled

me at the time, but I was anxious to know before I asked the

question if there were going to be more persons. Now her memory

has come back, or at least she has gone further into her

estimates.

However, if the Minister knows that she is going to increase

by specific numbers of persons in her department and she knew

it at the time that the estimates were being prepared….

Otherwise, she would not have been able to estimate the salary

contingency in the amount of $652,683. Now the Minister has

just outlined to me that she knew when the estimates were being

prepared in order to determine this figure. I must say that it

is an accurate figure, because it comes right out to the odd

dollar. It isn't just a rounded-out figure. So I can see that

she has done some work on it. But I have to question, Mr.

Chairman, the fact that if this is going to be procedure here,

we are not going to be able to debate accurately these

estimates.

She has gone to the trouble of increasing her staff last year as

laid out by positions from 45 to 68. I just have to say that the

estimates tabled in this House…and asking us to vote on a salary

contingency when she was already aware that she was going to increase

the number of persons in her staff is misleading to this Legislature.

It was pointed out by the Premier and also by the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who did not have a salary contingency

but was able to develop the increased salaries for each person in his

department…. Because he is a chartered accountant he didn't go along

with this figure of having a contingency. He was able to work it out.

But I would suggest that these estimates are completely misleading.

I would have to suggest and request that the Minister

withdraw her estimates and table before this House her true

intentions as to what she has outlined before the House. This

is the reason that we had to question this tremendous amount.

We were saying last night that if these salary contingencies

are in this amount without an increased staff, it would figure

out to be a 65 per cent salary contingency for the coming year.

There are wage adjustments made in the number of persons.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I am greatly disappointed in

this Minister in the way that she has presented her estimates.

Now I realize that she is a new Minister and she has got a new

department and she probably has a lot of work, but I have no

other alternative but to say that the estimates are misleading,

very misleading. The Minister knew at the time she was making

up her estimates that she was going to hire X number of people,

and she even outlined to the Legislature here how many and

where they would be. Yet why were these positions not outlined

under vote 32 in the general administration?

Why were these new staff positions trying to be covered up

in a general hocus-pocus vote of $652,000? We have been told in

this House before that the salary contingency was to allow for

salary adjustments, and that has always been the policy in this

House.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, for certain small increases in staff,

particularly in the Department of Highways where you're talking

about day labour, but we're talking about an increase from 68

members to 96 members. Now that's not just a small contingency

increase of one or two members where you might run into a

situation you couldn't foresee. But an increase of 28 members

is nearly…well, it's well over 25 per cent increase in the

number of persons to be employed by this department. Are we

going to have to take for granted that this is going to be

prevalent throughout the remainder of the estimates in salary

contingencies — that it's not allowing just for the increase in

salaries but that numbers of persons in the civil service are

going to be hidden in this estimate?

We'd like to know from time to time, and we'd like to figure

out what the increase is going to be in the number of persons

employed by the government. If the increases for the coming

year in the number of persons that a Minister intends to hire

are going to be

[ Page 1155 ]

hidden in a contingency vote such as we have here, then the

House is not getting the true facts. As I've said before, why

discuss the estimates if we're not going to know the truth

about the estimates when they're presented? That's why we have

a Legislature. That is why we have a committee of supply. The

purpose of the Committee of Supply is to vote money but to vote

money to a Minister we must also have accurate information as

to what the money is going to be used for. I think this is

getting further and further away from our democratic system of

having the Legislature vote on Committee of Supply.

Last year we had over — I could stand corrected on this — I

believe it was a sum of over $400 million voted to

orders-in-council, expenditures of which never come close to

this Legislature. I'm just wondering what direction we're

heading in. I think it's only fair that the Minister withdraw

this vote 33 and bring in a supplement — a new estimate — broken down

to the information that she has given us here in

the House or, barring that, at least table the information or

distribute it to the opposition Members so we can take time to

have a look at it and question it.

I wrote down some of the information, but maybe we should

have a recess at the present time while the Minister provides

us with copies of that information so we can intelligently look

at this vote. I would like to ask the Minister if she and the

House would agree to a short adjournment while she photostats

copies of this information so that we can intelligently look at

it. If she doesn't agree to this I have no other alternative

but to think that she doesn't want to provide us with accurate

information and that she is trying to get us to vote on a

salary contingency which we do not thoroughly understand.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I want to

thank the Minister for the information which she provided to

the committee today. I think it's fairly clear, but I would

like to make certain I understand the category of

temporary-continuous — 15 people you have in that category,

Madam Minister. May I ask a series of questions? First of all,

the 15 employees in the temporary-continuous category: do you

have them now? That's question No. 1. Last year's establishment

of 45, in fact, was increased by 15, and that's a total of 60

people, including your establishment and the

temporary-continuous.

Question No. 2. In arriving at the figure of 68 established

personnel in your department, are you taking those people who

were temporary-continuous and moving them into fully

established positions in the department?

Thirdly, having increased your establishment to 68, will you still

require to have people in the temporary-continuous category? If that's

so, I'd like to know why. It seems to me that temporary-continuous is

something a little less than permanent, and if we're slowly

increasing the department in this way, then it seems to me

we're entitled to have some details as to the specific tasks

that these people in temporary-continuous undertake. I'm not

talking about temporary assistance. I understand that category

quite clearly. It's the temporary-continuous. Why are they not

listed in your department by categories so we know the

positions they fill?

Lastly, the new staff of 15. Am I correct that this is a

plan that the department has? But unless and until Treasury

Board approves your plan he will not have the authority to

engage these additional 13 new staff, open the new office and

undertake all the expenditures that are affected with that

particular task. In other words, it's possible that Treasury

Board might decide not to permit you to go ahead with your plan

at all or with your full plan. They may somehow or other tailor

it down. The 13 new staff are only there for a forecast of what

you believe you will require and hope you will get.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Hon. Member, I

believe the first question was: are the 15 people now employed?

Yes, they are now employed. They consist of people who were

recruited as the need for more help became evident in the

department in the past 12 months, and we intend to ask that

these positions be formally established by order-in-council in

the very near future. I can give you an example. In my own

office I have a clerk-typist, temporary-continuous. She is

there simply because my office receives so much mail that we

just required another person in my particular office.

We have additional assistance in payroll. We have a clerk 2

in the mail department in administrative services. We have a

typist-receptionist in the administrative services. We have a

clerk-steno in our consumer protection branch. We have a

clerk-steno 4 in our trade practices branch in Vancouver, and

five additional clerk-typists 2 in our trade practices branch

in the department and three clerks 2 in our consumer protection

branch.

I think I answered the second question: are we moving the 15

into permanent positions? Yes, this is what we expect to do by

order-in-council. Therefore, they will no longer be

temporary-continuous. We do not anticipate at this time that

there will be need for additional temporary-continuous.

However, in all honesty I cannot preclude the possibility. In

other words, none of us know what the future will hold. We do

not know if other legislation will be assigned to the

department from other departments. It comes to mind that some

legislation that may be coming may require the hiring of

additional staff to, perhaps, keep

[ Page 1156 ]

the records of something of that nature or act as a liaison

person under that specific legislation, such as our cemeteries

people do in relation to the Cemeteries Act.

The new positions which we hope to fill that do not exist

now and have not been filled, but fall under this vote, are

partly to staff the office that we hope to establish later on

in this year — our new field office — in addition to beefing up

the trade practices part of the department. It has become very

evident to us that we need additional staff in this area. We

need additional investigators; we need an audit accountant.

This we found in our investigations, that it is very important

to have a qualified accountant to be able to look at the

business records during investigations that come up from time

to time.

We need a director to handle the administration of the

department. At the present time the Deputy Minister is doing

this, and it's getting to the point where it's becoming onerous

inasmuch as the staff has increased. There are problems

regarding leasing of equipment, leasing of premises, paying the

bills, carrying out all of the accounting functions of the

department. Even just going down and looking over the furniture

for a new office, arranging for phones to be put in a new

office is a full-time job for one person. This is what we need.

We need somebody to take over the day-to-day administration of

the department, and a stenographer to assist that person.

In the matter of regulations dealing with the various

sections of the Trade Practices Act and also other legislation,

we need a person who will be very conversant and will help

design regulations for industry to use as guidelines in their

dealings in consumer matters. I think I have pretty well

covered it all.

We are beefing up our education branch too, bringing in

additional people there. We found educational aspects have

really become a very important thrust of the department. I

think the response we've received from the public and also from

the educational community is a very big plus. They are so eager

that we just simply need more people to assist them in getting

the information not only to students but to teachers and to the

general community, to even night school people. So we are

beefing up that department too. I think that covers it.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister: is it reasonable to assume, then, that 96 is to be

the entire complement of people in the department? Of the 68

which are there, 15 which are to be transferred from temporary

to continuous, plus 13 new, makes 96 the total. The areas in

which these people are to be employed have been clearly

stipulated here today.

I would like the Minister to consider the fact that we are

having an expansion of the community resources programme in the

province. The forerunners of these community resources boards,

of course, are the community services in the area. I am

thinking particularly of one in Abbotsford which has just

recently been given the green light to go into an election

procedure to constitute a bona fide community resource board.

In my correspondence with the community services of Abbotsford

they tell me that one of the services they wish to provide

through the community resources board is consumer

protection.

The question that I have to the Minister then is: has she

considered these expansions, because Abbotsford is only one of

them? The intention of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) is to have the entire province blanketed with these

community resources boards, each of which has the same goal of

providing consumer protection. Will this require additional

staff not anticipated in this number of 96?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, in these matters we have been

working with the Department of Human Resources. In one case

which I mentioned yesterday we asked the local Human Resources

board to recommend a person or to evaluate two citizens groups

in a particular area and give us their recommendation as to

which should be funded. We fund local groups on a six-month

basis, and they are audited for that reason. They are kept on a

bit of a short string so that we have a good audit on them at

all times. This would be the way it would be done.

We are working, I think, on another situation wherein we

perhaps will be using a desk in one of the facilities of a

local Human Resources board. In other words, we may fund a

person under our funding programme or grants programme; we may

fund a local person a half a day, a week or three half-days a

week, or something of this nature, depending on the needs of

that community. They will work, perhaps, in the vicinity, in

the same building or very close by the Resources board. So we

are working with the department that way.

I quite appreciate the idiocy, really, of spreading many

departments all over one community when it could be of greater

benefit to the community if they were all centralized. I think

that is the objective of this government; to decentralize as

far as putting them out of the lower mainland and the lower

part of Vancouver Island and getting out into the total

province, and, at the same time, not having people run from

this end of town to that end of town to the third end of town

to try and get a service.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few words, Mr.

Chairman. I also want to thank the

[ Page 1157 ]

Minister for correcting the information which was conveyed

to us last night. I attempted on a couple of occasions to

extract the information which she has revealed to us today. One

of the things which disturbed me was the shockingly erroneous

information which was being conveyed to the Minister last night

in what appeared to be an attempt to hide what actually

represented this substantial allocation of $652,000. As the

information progressed it became more ridiculous, absolutely

more ridiculous. It became apparent to us — if you read the

Blues — that it was an attempt to hide just what was

represented in this $652,000. Oh, I'm on the…no,

$652,000.

I'm getting some bum information behind me. (Laughter.) But

at least I check my figures again….

HON. MS. YOUNG: The sabot is on the other foot.

MR. CHABOT: I think that there should be full disclosure as

to what the staffing of your department is. There is no reason,

in my point of view, that temporary staff cannot be included

under vote 32 rather than being concealed or buried under

salary contingencies. All I do want to say is that I hope….

I want to thank the Minister again as I did last night for her

expansion on the activities of her department and the full

disclosure — thank her for taking my suggestion that she go to

bed last night and have a little rest, think it over and then

come back and give us some answers today, which she did. I hope

that when she brings her estimates forward next year we won't

find the variety of positions — 30 positions — that we found

buried in salary contingencies, and they'll be fully disclosed

under the general administration of her department.

Vote 33 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On vote 34: Minister's office, $85,129.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for its

overwhelming support.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Stand up! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: Every time I stand in my place we hear the

same tired old jokes by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. He

can't think of anything new, Mr. Chairman, and neither can his party.

I stand only in my place, before the opposition Members take their

place in this committee, to introduce to the House 49 students who are

visiting here from that great area of Vancouver, Vancouver-Centre — the

West End — 49 students from King George High School. They're with their

teacher, Mr. Buyan.

Mr. Chairman, these students are here to see the opposition

in action at the committee level. They want to see how the

opposition asks intelligent questions about the estimates that

have been presented to them. I indicated to the students not to

be disappointed or too unhappy about the democratic process if

the questions were not that intelligent. Here is an

opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for the opposition to demonstrate

otherwise.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, needless to say I'm rather

startled at the fact that the Minister hasn't seen fit to give

us a review of the activities of his department last year. I

guess the few words he's given us have indicated very clearly

the kind of activity that has taken place in his department for

the last year.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'll be speaking about that in due

course.

But as I review the estimates of expenditure for the

department, it's the only department of government that doesn't

reflect any activity. There's a very minimal increase in dollar

allocation to this department as compared to the other

portfolios. There's been an increase from $4.3 million to $5

million for a portfolio that is basically the nerve centre of

the economy — of the activity of this government in its attempt

to create economic opportunities and employment for people in

this province. All we see is a minimal amount of increase in

his estimates.

When one looks at the estimates, one has to conclude that

the vast expenditure in this department is in general

administration. We find that general administration takes up

the majority of the dollars in his department. It increases

from $1.9 million to $2.8 million. When you take into

consideration the salary contingencies of $479,000, we find

that $3.3 million of his budget of $5 million is made up in the

field of general administration.

Salaries: that's where the activity is in his portfolio, Mr.

Chairman. We see a small allocation for programmes and grants,

a small allocation which has decreased — an allocation of $1.5

million. So with the Minister's office, along with his general

administration and salary contingencies, we find that $3.5

million looks after the lavishness which the Minister enjoys in

his office, looks after the flacks who work for him, looks

after the salaries of civil

[ Page 1158 ]

servants, and looks after the paper churning within his

department. I'll have more to say about the paper churning that

comes out of that Department of Economic Development.

You know, if the government keeps taking away from this

portfolio there will be absolutely nothing left. All we'll have

is a Minister and his Department of Economic Development Act.

That's all we'll have. We even see a bill presented on

the floor of the Legislature this afternoon again taking away

additional responsibilities from that Minister over there.

I don't know what is happening. Why they don't trust him

with responsibility is beyond my belief, because he projects

the image of brightness in this House when he talks, yet we see

this practical phase-out of this department. This has been

taken away from him. The matter of the data processing centre

has been taken out of his department. The agent-general's

office in London has been taken out of his office. So all we

have is the Minister and his Act. That's basically all that is

left in that portfolio — plus the dollars for the general

administration and salary contingencies.

In talking about the Minister and his little Act, one has to

look at

section 5 of the Act. It says:

"The Minister shall make and submit to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council an annual report respecting the

work performed by the department" — maybe he is embarrassed to

present it — "and the report shall be laid before the

Legislative Assembly during the first session in the year next

following the end of the fiscal year for which the report is

made."

Despite the fact that we have asked the Minister on numerous

occasions to present his annual report in the assembly, we've

been unable to convince him that we have a right to examine the

activities of his department prior to the debate of his

estimates. But no, the Minister seems to relish the idea that

the Members don't get the report prior to debate on his

estimates.

It suggests to me that the Minister or his department has

contempt for the Legislature when they won't present that

wafer-thin report in this House. I'm not asking the Minister to

present a report — we know full well that there is no way he

possibly could, with the lack of activity in his department — such as the Attorney-General presented the other day, a report

of 320 pages. All we are asking him to present is the little,

paper-thin report similar to the one presented in 1973, and

that report has 16 pages.

Page 1 says it is the annual report.

Page 2 is blank.

Page 3 has a picture of the Minister and a short statement

by the Deputy.

Page 4 shows a picture of some silos and tells you where the office

is, British Columbia House, for which we don't see…well, that was in

1973. We are so far behind in reports from that department now we still

see B.C. House in that final report but it's not in the estimates today.

Half of page 3 is a picture of silos. The other half tells

you the head office is in Victoria and that they have an office

in Vancouver.

Page 4 shows the organization of the department. It shows

the Minister as the head, and it shows the various components

of the department.

Well, lo and behold, page 6 is all pictures.

Page 7 talks briefly about the economy.

Page 8 has a picture occupying part of the page, and in

large print says "Industrial expansion." Page 8 talks about

industrial expansion in a minimal amount.

On page 9 we get some more pictures and it talks about

external trade.

Page 10 is half pictures and it talks more about

Expo '74.

Page 11 again more pictures and it talks about general

affairs.

Page 12 talks about the operations.

Page 13 has about four short paragraphs, and three-quarters

of the page is covered by pictures.

Page 14 gives us some statistics. Even though he is no

longer responsible for the data processing centre, we still get

statistics.

Page 15 talks about some of the publications that the

government issues from time to time.

Page 16 talks about the now removed B.C. House, of which

half is made up with a picture.

Now it's not that difficult for the Minister to table a

report which is 16 pages long. Some pages are blank and some

are exclusively pictures. Now that's not asking too much by the

Members of this House to have the Minister table his annual

report, which says very little.

There's no justifiable reason, in my opinion, why this

report couldn't have been tabled prior to the estimates of the

Minister. The information was contained in the 1973 report; it

shouldn't take too much to put out a 1974 report.

I had high hopes for this Minister when he first came into the

House. He appeared extremely aggressive prior to his being appointed to

the cabinet. He's collapsed completely since he's taken over that

portfolio. He's dissipated my hopes for industrial expansion in this

province. From the time he became Minister there's been nothing

accomplished, absolutely nothing. He talks about the great

reorganization of his portfolio at the time he was appointed. He issued

many press releases telling us of the great reorganization of the

department that was taking place.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Be serious.

[ Page 1159 ]

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health says "be serious." I've

never been more serious in my life. That Minister's an absolute

failure. He spells chaos in this province, and I'm absolutely

serious about that. This Minister has done absolutely nothing

since he's taken over his responsibilities in this portfolio.

He's done nothing to attract secondary industry in British

Columbia. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister's a

dismal failure. That's what he is.

Here's a portfolio that should be the focal point of job

creation in British Columbia, of economic activity in British

Columbia. Yet we get absolutely nothing from that Minister.

Even though there hasn't been a substantial increase in the

allocation in his portfolio, there's still $5 million there. I

think the people of British Columbia have the right to expect

something from that $5 million, and I assure you they're

getting absolutely nothing from that Minister and from that

department on the expenditure of $5 million.

He talked, in the early days of his Ministry…. It will be

short-lived too. On July 27, 1973, he talked about the great

thrust in northern British Columbia. He had this to say:

"The provincial government is extending the thrust of

northern development to the northeastern sector of the province

and will concentrate on expanding and diversifying economic

activity in the Peace River area.

"Mr. Lauk said he is visiting the Peace River area in

order

to get to know community leaders on a personal basis.

Departmental staff will visit the Sukunka coal deposit

site."

You remember that one? You remember the Sukunka coal, the

great hope, the great vision they had about development of the

Sukunka coal deposit. We know what happened to Sukunka: it

collapsed. Lack of encouragement from that Minister, and that

department over there….

He talked about the staff visiting the coal deposit site,

which is dissipated, which has disappeared at the expense of

jobs in British Columbia.

Then he goes on:

"'As you know, the government has announced the

railway

agreement with the cooperation of the federal government on

rail freight rates for the carriage of freight for both Eurocan

and Can-Cel. Now that substantial agreements have been made

which will help this area develop, we'll be looking at other

regions.'"

In other words, the northwest was already in place, that

great economic development that was going to take place in the

northwest. The Minister had set the machinery in action. The

machinery had never even been lubricated.

The Minister was going to occupy himself with economic development

in other areas of the province. He was going to go to the Peace River.

He'd already finalized the future economic expansion of the northwest

of British Columbia; he was going to move to the northeast.

Well, there was little necessity in the Minister going to

the Peace River country, because he'd done absolutely nothing

in the northwest part of the province; and that appears to be

what's happened in the Peace River country as well. He says

that the Peace River area report indicates potential for

economic development in several areas. Studies will be

undertaken — more of those studies — and made available to the

public, of potentials of forestry, agriculture, mining, oil and

gas exploration, tourism.

"At the request of the Northern Development Council,

the Hon. Phyllis Young." Well, that's another item.

But the Minister talked about the potential in the Peace,

that studies would take place. Studies have taken place,

massive studies have taken place in the northwest, yet we see

very little activity there. And there is concern.

The Minister talked about the great DREE. I remember how

proud the Minister was when he stood in this assembly and

talked about the DREE agreement that had been negotiated with

the national government. They were well on their way to

expansion of secondary industry in British Columbia. Oh, yes,

this was the great thing. Oh, yes, he came in here and he was

very boastful about it — the great general agreement has been

signed.

But all we had to do was look into the terminology into the

wording of the general development agreement and we came to the

conclusion that it was necessary to sign subsidiary agreements.

I don't know whether to this day there have been subsidiary

agreements signed. I know that British Columbia was the last

province in Canada to sign subsidiary agreements with the

national government.

Maybe that's the reason why Mr. Jamieson came to British

Columbia — to drive that Minister out of his office, to get

some kind of economic development going in British Columbia.

Certainly there was no activity or no finalization of any

agreements on the visits that the Minister made to Ottawa. It

was necessary for a federal Minister to come to British

Columbia to get that Minister to get moving on DREE. I hope the

Minister, when he stands in his place in due course, will tell

us whether at last the last province in Canada has signed a

subsidiary agreement with the national government.

Oh, he talked about the agreement in principle — the joint

transportation development programme for the northwestern part

of British Columbia. That programme appears to have been put in

mothballs. We hear nothing further on what's going on in the

northwestern part of the province. There were high hopes for

railway line extensions up there that would

[ Page 1160 ]

bring on economic development up there, but nothing has

happened. All these rail line extensions, the rail development

programme that was mentioned in this agreement with the

national government, have not brought on any kind of activity

in the northwestern part of British Columbia.

There is concern up there with the lack of activity on the

part of your department and the fact that you have a vision

that you are unable to fulfil. All you do is sign some general

agreement or some agreement in principle on transportation and

that's the end of it. You have massive studies of area

development and then there's no action.

The mayors from the northern part of British Columbia are

concerned with the lack of activity through your department and

through your government.

The mayor from Prince Rupert is concerned. He says that in

1973 it was forecast that an announcement would be made soon on

federal/provincial projects for the northwest, to include

hydro-electric dams, three new towns, at least five new

sawmills, a pulp mill and vast mineral resource development

with a new network of railway lines to service the complex. The

forecast claimed that 20,000 new jobs would be created over the

100,000 sq. mi. area. There was a secret report which was

leaked out of the government department which talked about the

massive development of the north two years ago, yet nothing has

happened in the past two years.

Despite the fact that in British Columbia our unemployment

at this time is over 100,000, there's no activity from your

department to alleviate the problem that certain people in our

society are facing — those over 100,000 which are presently

unemployed. What happened?

What has happened to the government's announcement to link

the BCR with the CP or the CN between Ashcroft and Clinton? Is

that a dead issue as well? That was a cost-sharing programme

between the national government and the provincial government.

That appears to have died a natural death as well — a lot of

studies, but no action.

The Minister issues a lot of press releases. He issued one

in which he was concerned about the price of natural gas in

Dawson Creek. He raised his voice in cabinet to object to the

massive increases in hydro rates in this province. He's

concerned for one little community, but he's not concerned

about the overall well-being of the economic development of

this province, where we found that Hydro, just a few months

ago, increased its commercial rates 18 per cent, residential 20

per cent, and to bulk users 70 per cent. Does the Minister feel

that these massive increases in hydro rates will be detrimental

in attracting secondary industry to British Columbia? He hasn't

had anything to say about that.

We have enough drawbacks in British Columbia in attracting

secondary industry without the government creating more. You

better believe you're creating more by these exorbitant rates

that you established for B.C. Hydro. No, all we've had from

that Minister over there is a series of press releases, attacks

against Ottawa, attacks against the eastern provinces, but

nothing constructive as far as job creation in the Province of

British Columbia is concerned.

I want to express my regret at this time at the departure of

the former Deputy Minister, Mr. Hempsall, from your department.

Mr. Hempsall, in my opinion, made a great contribution in this

province in the short period of time that he was Deputy

Minister and Associate Deputy Minister in the Department of

Economic Development.

I am wondering whether the Minister can give us some

information in relationship to the steel study that's going on

and the expenditure of — I don't know if the figure has been

upwardly revised or not — I believe it was originally $1.2

million for the steel study, the joint study between the KKK

Co. of Japan and the Department of Economic Development. I am

wondering if the Minister will level with this Legislature as

well and tell us whether he really believes that British

Columbia is an economically viable place to establish a steel

industry.

I am sure that the Minister has taken into consideration the

possibility of environmental damage by the establishment of a

steel mill in the province. I hope that there's no intention on

the part of any other countries that are involved in the

possibility of establishing a steel smelter in this province of

exporting pollution to British Columbia. We don't want

pollution in this province. We know full well — and I believe

the Minister is aware, or I'm sure his Deputy can inform him — that

there is a fair amount of activity, a fair amount of

expansion, as far as steel manufacturing is concerned in our

two sister provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I am wondering whether the Minister will talk to us about

the possibilities of establishing a copper smelter in British

Columbia. You know, we have an abundance of copper in this

province. Despite the fact that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) is attempting to destroy the mining industry in

British Columbia, we still have an abundance of copper. The

Minister could probably tell us what kind of progress is taking

place as far as copper is concerned.

The government, in its manifesto to the people in 1972,

talked about the export of our raw materials. It talked about

the export of copper concentrates. They were concerned about

the export of jobs. I think it's opportune that I should point

out some of the statements they made at that time. They talked

about an economy for people. They thought the need for

secondary industry was critical. "We must stop

[ Page 1161 ]

exporting jobs abroad."

Well, it's very nice to say those kind of things — that we

should stop exporting jobs. But the Minister knows full well

that it's to the well-being of the economy and the well-being

of the forest industry of this province that we're presently

exporting wood chips to an unparalleled degree. Never before

has British Columbia exported more wood chips than are being

exported under that government that professes to be against the

export of our raw materials. Yet, thank God, it's helping — in

my opinion — the forest industry in British Columbia.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't talk out of both

sides of your mouth at once. You must be consistent. Don't

attempt to mislead the people of British Columbia by suggesting

that you're opposed to the export of wood chips; yet your

government is exporting more wood chips than have ever been

exported from this province since its creation. Never before

have we seen so many wood chips leaving this province. And, no

doubt, that particular export will increase, will accelerate,

in the months ahead.

But in establishing an economy for people, they go on….

They say:

"But establishing secondary industry need not mean

handing

over control to foreign companies. It need not mean providing

public subsidies for private profits out of the taxpayers'

pockets. We have the means to do the job ourselves if we tap

the vast revenues generated by our resources."

Well, we know what you've done with your resource wealth as

far as mining is concerned. Your government, of which you are a

part, has virtually destroyed the mining industry in this

province.

Then in your manifesto to the people, you said:

"As an

immediate step an NDP government will introduce a resource

companies information Act to ensure full financial disclosure

by resource firms. The Act will provide the information needed

to significantly increase revenues from our resources."

Well, that Act certainly hasn't been introduced by that

government since it's been in office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you're in your final two

minutes.

MR. CHABOT: My colleague from Cariboo tells me that the

green light's on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.

MR. CHABOT: I've hardly started to get into the material

that I have before me.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's right. When are you going to

start?

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister asks when I am going to

start. But I think I've posed a few questions to the Minister

at this time, and maybe he'd like to respond or have someone

else take his place. However, I'll have lots more to say at

another time. The Minister knows full well that I'm brief with

my questions, and I hope the Minister is as brief as I am with

my questions as he is with his answers.

HON. MR. LAUK: As I have said many times, it's always a

delight to see the Member for Columbia River in his place. His

speeches are a clear victory of form over content. He used last

year's speeches, last year's press releases. The man doesn't

even go to the morning paper anymore. This is the kind of

research that we have had from this Social Credit

opposition.

MR. CHABOT: I want to know what you are doing.

HON. MR. LAUK: This is the kind of opposition they give us.

The Ottawa Journal has printed an

article on the

burnbling B.C. Socreds. It paled the image of old W.A.C. Boy! a

truer

article has never been written, and I recommend it to

every British Columbian. Read the facts about this opposition.

Bumblers! We provide them with research assistants; we provide

them with everything the taxpayer can provide an opposition

with to do its jobs. And the Member for Columbia River comes in

here with a couple of pale yellow press clippings. He's not

even up to date; he doesn't know what's going on.

It's not the job of a Minister to expand his department

where he does not feel it's necessary to expand it to cover

more work. It reminds me of an exhibit that was down in the

exposition in Seattle that had a do-nothing machine, a great

big machine with cranks and steam coming out and so on, very

much like the speeches from the Hon. Member. But that's not the

point of the exercise. In departments where personnel is

required to serve the people of this province, expansion should

and has taken place. In my department we have expanded on a

professional basis — the economists and analysts we think are

necessary to provide the service to the public of this province

and to the people represented by its government.

I have the annual report which I am going to ask leave of

the House to table when the committee rises. I am sorry that by

law it's not required until next year, Mr. Member. You should

read your Act and you should know that. As a courtesy to this

House we have pulled out all the stops and prepared the annual

report in this session.

The Member was a former cabinet Minister, Mr. Chairman, and

he's talking about data processing. Data processing fills out

the cheques. He's talking about statistics through the

department of statistics

[ Page 1162 ]

and data processing together. He doesn't know that there's

no connection. He hasn't got a clue what data processing is all

about, and he was the Minister of Labour while this was going

on. Talk about research!

Again, like the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips),

he places the downturn in the entire economy on my shoulders.

Again, I'm flattered. I really think….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace

River on a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish the Minister wouldn't make allegations

before I've had an opportunity to speak in his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: That surprises me, Mr. Chairman, because I

wouldn't think the Member would rise in his place on a

frivolous interruption.

Placing the responsibility of the chaos on my shoulders, as

is described previously in the budget speech debate…. I was

amazed to hear from the Member for South Peace River that it

was my responsibility. So I phoned down to the White House and

I asked to speak to Mr. Ford. I got the janitor and I told them

who I was, and they never knew who I was. And I said: "Don't

you realize that I am responsible for the economic chaos in the

world today? I've got to speak to the president about

this."

What utter nonsense! What absolute nonsense! We know why the

lumber market has failed in this province. If you had been

reading my real speeches instead of looking at old, yellowed

press clippings, you'd know that I predicted a year ago that

unless we diversify our markets for lumber products in this

province we would meet this thing time and time again. It has

happened in the past in the previous administration. I would

not blame the previous Minister of Industrial Development (Mr.

Skillings) for the economic chaos. I wouldn't blame him for

anything. I wouldn't blame him for anything except that he was

a close friend of the Premier. That's all I blame him for.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): That's right.

HON. MR. LAUK: And here he is again, the armchair lawyer

over there, chirping away.

But what is going on today that didn't go on yesterday?

That's the way you should look at it. Don't ask for the

impossible, Mr. Chairman, through to the Member. What you have

to picture is what happened before. Ralph Loffmark promised us

a copper smelter. Robert Bonner talked about a copper smelter.

Waldo Skillings promised a copper smelter.

And they took yours. The chamber of commerce, the mayor and

municipality of Frankfurt were waiting for Ralph Loffmark to

get off a plane and see them on his trade mission, and he never

showed up. He stopped off in Cairo.

That's the quality of industry ministers that the previous

administration had.

Since 1896 in this province, they have been talking about a

steel mill. Within months of my appointment I went to Japan and

secured an agreement by which the first stages of the

establishment of steel production in this province could start — within the first few months. And they've been talking about

it in this province since 1896.

MR. CHABOT: Tell us what you've done.

HON. MR. LAUK: Copper smelting. The Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser) stood in his place in the budget speech debate and said

that so long as this government was in power, there would be no

copper smelter.

MR. FRASER: Right!

HON. MR. LAUK: I asked him then and I ask him now: will you

stake your seat on it? Will you resign if there is a copper

smelter started within the first or second term of this

administration? Will you stake your seat on it?

MR. FRASER: You come and run against me!

MR. GIBSON: Will you resign if it's not?

HON. MR. LAUK: This Member makes a statement and is not

willing to back it up by putting his seat on it.

Mr. Chairman, when I took this portfolio, I went immediately

to the research division and I said: "Could you provide me with

the statistics on copper and coal supply, on mineral supplies,

the analysis and so on?"

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard that before.

MR. CHABOT: That's an old speech.

HON. MR. LAUK: They said: "I'm sorry, you're going to have

to talk to the Japanese. They know more about what minerals are

in the ground."

I asked about populations and so on and so forth. We had to

go to Statistics Canada.

MR. CHABOT: What an old speech.

HON. MR. LAUK: They had ancient statistics. That was the

kind of research gathering that was

[ Page 1163 ]

going on in this province. Private industry and government

did not have the information upon which they could make even

the slightest economic decisions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you serious about those last two

statements?

HON. MR. LAUK: We've commenced a programme of investigations

and surveys which are providing all departments of government

with this kind of information.

They talk about cooperation with the federal government.

Mr. Chairman, the budget the federal government has for the

Province of British Columbia is very, very minimal. I'll be as

polite as I can to the Department of Regional Economic

Expansion.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I think the Minister is sincere, but I think his colleagues

who depend upon the political power base of Ontario and Quebec

call the tune, and that tune is: "The money goes elsewhere, not

B.C." In spite of that fact, I am not willing to wash my hands

of the DREE programme. I am not willing to do that. I am

willing to try and try again to get a fair share of federal

money in this province.

I met with the Minister, whom I consider a sincere

gentleman. We discussed the principles involved in the GDA

agreement mentioned by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot). He agreed that more quick action should be taken on

the part of his officials…

MR. CHABOT: And you.

HON. MR. LAUK: …so that we could arrive at an

agreement.

MR. CHABOT: We're the last of the provinces.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the stumbling block.

HON. MR. LAUK: Secondly, he agreed that provincial

priorities should prevail and he has so instructed his

officials. I hope to see subsidiary agreements signed soon.

Now let's not pretend that the federal government is going

to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into this province.

They didn't before and they're not today, but we'll get

whatever we can, Mr. Chairman. We will try and plough through

the federal red tape to bring it on the table here in B.C.

where it belongs.

It is particularly interesting to hear about how hydro

rates, particularly for natural gas, are discouraging industry.

It was the policy of this government to conserve a precious,

non-renewable, natural resource of natural gas in this province. We felt

that the industrial rates were too low and the rates have been

raised. That is a conservation measure that even the opposition

cannot argue with. In spite of the raises, it is still the

cheapest natural gas supply anywhere in the world. It will be

available to industry that wishes to establish in British

Columbia. It is still an attractive energy choice.

It is difficult to argue with the Hon. Member who treats the

estimates in such a superficial manner. He looks at the basic

figures, he doesn't even look to see what item number is

attached to each one. He just says a round figure and he says

that Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative goes to some other

Minister, and this goes to another Minister, and I'm not to be

trusted, and so on. The actual expenditures in this department

have increased about 50 per cent on the kinds of services that

we are trying to bring to the business community and other

branches of government. The trade mission programme is

successful because it is a trade mission programme that is

designed to sign contracts and not go on a cocktail

circuit.

MR. CHABOT: Duplication.

HON. MR. LAUK: Incoming buyers are communicated with in our

department for the first time. They are linked up with

manufacturers and sellers in British Columbia. For the first

time, we are providing that kind of system. But I don't think I

should trouble the Hon. Member with the facts. He's not

interested in them because his arguments are so

superficial.

Talk about wood chips. I think any grade 8 social studies

student would know that when the lumber market is down you

still have to forest logs. No one pretends….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a double standard.

HON. MR. LAUK: He says "a double standard," Mr.

Chairman. He wants it both ways; the government doesn't. He

wants to say you can't have it one way without the other. You

can have it both ways because that's what the facts of life are — both ways.

When the lumber market is up, the Minister of Forests (Hon.

R.A. Williams) should insist that logs be sawed and that lumber

be produced and that we add value to the resource. When the

lumber market is down, because it's a renewable resource, we

should get the best possible return for the people of British

Columbia, which means we have to export wood chips. That's

obvious; that makes sense. We should have more pulp mills in

this province and make more pulp and paper. We hope to see that

soon, too, so that we don't have to export as much wood

chips

[ Page 1164 ]

during a slump in the lumber market.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're announcing the Minister of

Forests' policies now.

HON. MR. LAUK: I've argued on several occasions and I'll

argue again: the point of the exercise is to diversify this

economy. That point was missed entirely by the previous

administration for 20 years. When other jurisdictions in other

provinces with the same resource base were taking different

directions, this government was the giveaway government, the

sellout government, the most conspicuous sellout government in

North America. It didn't take any steps to diversify the

economy. Now a handful of years after our election they're

calling upon us and blaming us for the lack of diversification

in the economy. What utter and complete nonsense! I don't think

they believe it. I know they don't believe it.

MR. CHABOT: That's awful stuff — from a Minister

(laughter).

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the different programmes of

this department speak for themselves. The opposition Members

obviously don't want to look at them; they want to make

superficial comments on them and read old press releases.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I don't know on

whom the fine little Minister is modeling his technique for

speaking but it seems like it may well be the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). But he certainly isn't doing as

good a job as the Member for Columbia River in that particular

technique. I suggest that the next time he gets to his feet he

adopt a more factual approach, because he really didn't do a

very good job.

HON. MR. LAUK: Perhaps you should ask some intelligent

questions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to go into two specific

proposals for industrial development in the Province of British

Columbia which the Premier has talked about and which our fine

little Minister has talked about: a steel mill and the oil

refinery.

I understand from what I've heard of reports out of Ottawa

today that the Premier has talked of the refinery and has said

that $350 million will be put into this. I don't know how he

gets the figure $350 million. If he intends to have this

refinery at the level to take over from the existing refineries

on Burrard Inlet, the figure has to be closer to $1 billion,

not $350 million. But the amount we can discuss later.

I'd like to discuss a couple of things in terms of first principles.

Mr. Chairman, if you're going to have a new oil refinery in British

Columbia, you have to have the raw materials to make the thing work.

You need

crude oil. This seems a very obvious fact, yet it seems to have

escaped some of those in government. Where can we get crude

oil, the feed stock for a British Columbia refinery?

In B.C. at the present time we are producing less than 50

per cent of the oil that we currently use in our refineries as

they exist at the present time. We import into the province,

essentially from Alberta, more than the amount that we get out

of our British Columbia oil wells. Therefore, there is a

substantial shortfall and any new refinery would require this

raw material, this feed stock — and that's crude oil.

I was in Alberta for a very short period during the last

provincial election. I shouldn't call it the provincial

election; I should call it the provincial coronation of Peter

Lougheed. In that exercise that went on for a few weeks in

Alberta, Lougheed came on strong on the need for Alberta to

have its own petrochemical industry, which, of course, is

dependent on Alberta refining its own crude oil — not shipping

it down to Ontario, not sending it to B.C., not sending it

across the line in crude form, but having it refined in

Alberta.

Lougheed talked about this at great length; he analyzed it

at great length. He talked about the population increase that

would follow from establishing such an industry, which would be

approximately half-a-million new people to go into Alberta in

the next three years.

Lougheed's proposals for growth are entirely predicated on

having Albertan oil refined in Alberta, and the products of

that refinery programme, mainly the petrochemical industry, in

Alberta. He doesn't want to have it in Sarnia; he doesn't want

to have it in the Fraser Valley. From his point of view, we can

understand that that makes a lot of sense.

My first question to the Minister is: where is guaranteed

source of oil? If it's not Alberta, it has to be offshore oil.

If it's offshore oil, the options are Alaskan oil, which I

would oppose bitterly on the grounds that we do not wish to

encourage Alaskan oil coming past our shores and through our

waters to a British Columbia refinery.

If it's Alaskan oil, have the added problem that as soon as

there is the slightest bit of trouble the Americans will divert

it to their own refineries in Puget Sound, Long Beach and

elsewhere up and down the Pacific Coast, and even, perhaps,

through Panama and into the gulf ports of Texas and

thereabouts. It seems unlikely that it will be Alaskan oil

unless, of course, we work out some trade-off with the

Americans by way of giving them Albertan oil, and that seems a

very, very, very risky proposal for British Columbia to be

engaged in.

If indeed there was trouble and the source was cut off, we

would instantly start howling for Albertan crude to replace the

Alaskan crude, and it is unlikely

[ Page 1165 ]

we would get it. It's a very risky proposal and I don't

think it should be gone into, but I would like to hear from the

Minister as to whether this is a possibility.

What are other alternatives, Mr. Chairman? Venezuelan crude

is a possibility. Indonesian crude is a possibility. Mexican

crude is a possibility. But all three sources of supply of

crude suffer from all of the traditional problems of the

overseas source: all three are liable to interruption; all

three depend upon heavy tanker traffic, and I think that not

one of them is a particularly good source, certainly not a

long-term secure source. So I would question the Minister on

this. I don't know of any possibilities of Siberian crude, or

any Soviet bloc crude, but it appears to me that the refinery

that he is proposing will not be provided with crude unless it

is from Venezuela, Mexico or Indonesia. And it appears that

this would be a very, very unstable source, and in times of

trouble we would be in difficulty.

So that is my first question: where will we get the feed

stock for the proposed refinery? Once we settle that question,

perhaps we can go into subsidiary questions such as where it

should be, what the costs are, and whatever.

My own view, from what we know at the present time, is that

it makes a great deal of sense to have Albertan crude refined

in Alberta and for us to buy the refined product. We will then

have a Canadian source of supply. We'll have the protection

that Confederation offers us. It has been shown in the last

couple of years with energy crises that this has been

advantageous to British Columbia as well as to other provinces.

We would have the product that we need at a price within the

limits set by the federal government and federal provincial

conferences, and we would have the best of all worlds.

It is true that we would not have the industrial development

of the petrochemical complex, but we are not going to get it

anyway, unless on the riskiest possible grounds, basing

ourselves on overseas crude. So I would like the Minister to go

into some detail on that.

The second point I would like the Minister to comment on is

the steel mill. Once again we are dealing with an industrial

proposal which depends upon an overseas source of raw material — Australian, Indian, but not British Columbian — because

essentially we don't have the quantities or any quantity to

speak of for a major steel mill. So the steel mill would be

very similar. We would be dependent upon a foreign source; and

just as soon as the country concerned sets up its own steel

mill, it will cut us off and we will be buying the finished

product as we are doing at the present time. Then we will be

left with this great monument to the Minister, our great little

Minister of Industrial Development, a monument of a rusting

steel mill, unusable because of no source of supply.

The other problem with a steel mill is this: there are many

types of steel used in British Columbia, literally scores of

different types of steel, and a single steel mill might not

produce very many of the types we need. The New Zealanders

found when they set up their mill that they were producing, I

think, under 10 of the 160-odd types of steel they were using.

The New Zealanders set up a steel mill. They thought it would

be the greatest thing since sliced bread. They tried then to

get rid of it to the Australian steel complex when they

discovered it was not working well. When that failed, they

tried to get rid of it to the Japanese, and I don't know what's

happened since. But it has turned out to be, in a market

similar to ours, with about the same number of people as ours,

a white elephant.

Steel mills, Mr. Chairman, which depend upon foreign sources

of supply, which in turn will depend also on foreign capital…. We're

importing capital from the Arabs like it is going

out of style. We will have to import the capital, not only for

that refinery but also for the steel mill. We'll have to import

the capital. We don't have the technology for the steel mill,

so that will be imported too. And, finally, we are going to

have to export most of the product.

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister has great ideas on this steel

mill I wish he would let us know at the present time, because

so far it looks like a pretty rotten deal.

The steel mill in question would bring large amounts of

environmental damage, would take enormous amounts of water,

fresh water, as the Minister knows. The sites that have been

indicated as possible are Kitimat, the site up near the

Qualicum area, and also Roberts Bank. These are sites where the

local residents, at least in two of the three, have mounted

strong protests against it. It leads to visual destruction or

visual pollution on a major scale. The main reason the Japanese

want to got rid of steel mills, or at least want to establish

new ones outside of the home islands, is because of the

environmental problems which they are experiencing at the

present time.

We are going to be bringing in foreign capital, foreign

technology, foreign raw materials and we're going to be

exporting most of the products, leaving behind large

environmental damage in British Columbia. So I'd like to know a

little more about the thinking behind that particular steel

mill.

The proposal has been made that somehow or another we will

be able to swap our steel with those countries that are going

to export crude oil to us. That argument is like adding a house

of cards on top of a house of cards. These things don't make

sense when you're dealing with the imported raw material.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few minutes. I'd just like to mention

another similar industry which we have at the present time and

which very soon is going to

[ Page 1166 ]

disappear. I know you're interested because it happens to be

the Kitimat aluminum development in your own riding, Mr.

Chairman.

As soon as there's a major nuclear power plant in the

Caribbean, kiss goodbye to bauxite coming to British Columbia

for the Kitimat Alcan operation. They come here for power, they

come here for the fuel, the smelting to turn it from bauxite

into aluminum, then as soon as they have a source of supply in

the Caribbean you can kiss goodbye to the industry. That's a

fact of life.

As yet they don't have that nuclear plant in the Caribbean,

but they're going to get it, and it won't be long. When we do,

our advantage will disappear.

We've already had Alcan's operations for bauxite

nationalized in Guyana. We've had the Jamaicans a lot less

friendly to us than previously and we're going to lose an

industry which we presently have just as soon as they find a

government in the Caribbean which has a nuclear reactor to

provide the necessary electricity for smelting.

Now we're in much the same situation with the oil refinery,

except here it's been clearly indicated by Lougheed that he

wants to keep refining capacity at home. Here it's been

indicated by the other countries concerned that are potential

suppliers — Mexico, for example — that they also would like to

have the industry at home and just as soon as they set up their

refining capacity, they won't be shipping it through to us

either. The same with Venezuela, that's why you find a large

number of off-shore refineries throughout the Caribbean.

They're using crude and they're sending the finished product up

into the American market.

I would like the Minister to comment, not in a flippant way

that he gave a few minutes ago in his speech. I'd like him to

comment in detail and put his mind to the problems I am

raising. Because, we can build steel mills, we can build

refineries. But when we've built them, when we've spent the

billion dollars that that refinery will likely cost us — and

I'm using the figures of Texaco's latest refinery in Ontario as

the basis of my comparison — when we've spent approximately $1

billion, we may find that the thing isn't going to produce any

economic benefits at all.

If Lougheed's tough enough, if the American situation is

such that they won't provide us with Alaskan crude, if the

off-shore suppliers elsewhere are being nationalistic, as our

Premier constantly tells them to be, we simply won't find crude

there either.

When it comes to steel, we have exactly the same problem.

Sure, we have coal in British Columbia. Sure, we have power in

British Columbia. But again when the Indian government sets up

their steel refining in the way they want it, they will not be

exporting ore as they are at the present time. Similarly with

Australia.

All the advantages for this particular industry that have been

talked about by the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development

are true for other countries as well. The difference is this: they may

well have the chance of establishing them on the basis of their own raw

material and we don't have that raw material. We don't have the raw

material for a steel mill except, as I mentioned, in the case of coal.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have an industry at the present time

employing thousands of British Columbians which within the next

decade will probably disappear, which may well disappear within

the next five years. It's Alcan, it's Kitimat, it's the use of

British Columbia hydro power to smelt bauxite into

aluminum.

I don't think we should go into other major industries which

are similarly vulnerable, in fact much more vulnerable. I don't

think we should go into other industries where it's clear we're

going to have serious difficulties in getting the raw

materials. I don't think we should go into other industries

where it's perfectly clear that the only reason the Japanese

want to have a steel mill here, instead of on their home

islands, is because of the outcry that comes in Japan every

time they try and set up a new mill.

I know this committee of the Minister is looking into this.

I know it's down in the estimates of his department. I think

there is $480,000 for this steel feasibility study down there

in code 038 of vote 37. But I question the basis upon which

this work is being done. Believe me, Mr. Minister, I've had

some experience in the international development field and I

have seen time after time national plans of countries set

up.

I've seen developments begun and I've seen that only after

the plant is established do people start worrying about the

fundamental questions, such as source of raw material. It

happens time after time. I'd like to know here and now what the

information you have on this is, what the thinking you have on

it is in terms of these very fundamental questions which I've

raised today.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I assure the Hon. Member that

my replies will not be flippant. I reserve that kind of reply

to the kind of speech we heard from the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot). I appreciate the research and the questions

that the Hon. Member has made. I think they are very legitimate

and they should be answered with the knowledge I have

available.

Let me first say that with respect to the steel feasibility

study what we wanted to do was find specific, knowledgable

supportable answers to many of the questions you've raised. I

think we can discuss them, however, and give you some of the

answers that we have arrived at without specific knowledge but

with general knowledge and why we are approaching the steel

feasibility study in the first

[ Page 1167 ]

place.

With the importation of iron ore it was clear to us that

this would have to be foreign importation. There was no really

accessible area within our jurisdiction that would provide a

source of iron ore. This was part of the discussion that took

place prior to the Premier and myself going to Japan.

At that time when we presented that problem, among others,

to Japanese steel makers, we asked them whether it was feasible

to do a feasibility study having regard to that fact. They

indicated to us a number of factors — that steel production

really is not a local jurisdiction kind of business. It's a

world business. The kind of planning that goes on in various

countries of the world is done globally. So steel production in

B.C. would have to in some way fit into the global strategy, if

you like, of steel production.

I said: "Well, that's fine. But how does that get us iron

ore?" They replied that the commitment for iron ore, on a

long-term basis to our plant, would be a global decision. Like

anything else, these kinds of global decisions are subject to

the frailties of politics in particular countries and so

on.

But it's also clear to us that none of the plans for steel

production in Australia or South America or elsewhere would

exclude the security of supply of iron ore to the kind of

production project that may come down the line to B.C. Peru and

Australia are a good source of supply and the particular

partner that we have chosen to assist us with a feasibility

study assures us of that fact.

Secondly, we have hopes in a long-term basis of seeing the

iron ore potential of the Yukon investigated more thoroughly.

At this stage it appears to us that it's economically unviable,

it's inaccessible and it's costly. But the ingenuity and the

technology of Canadian mining may have some answers to those

problems soon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Not everything's bad.

Next I should point out that this feasibility study is also

analyzing the direct reduction process so that the scale of

production comes from two to four million tons a year that

would have to be exported to something that would supply the

Alberta-B.C. market.

There was a question of Alberta and Saskatchewan's steel production.

I say, with great respect to them, that it's totally uneconomic by

virtue of transportation economics. That analysis reveals clearly they

cannot produce steel as cheaply as we can — under any circumstances.

They have to ship in ore overland and ship out products overland. They

have no market where they are producing it and they have no source of

iron ore and they have no coal, they have no power, they have no

natural gas in the way that we do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's lunatic.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's lunatic, I agree. Let me proceed a

little further on the processes of thinking. I don't agree with

you. The concept of having steel production in B.C. is to

ensure a supply of reasonably priced steel to B.C. to provide

jobs and to be step No. 1 in the process of the diversification

of our economy.

Of course, it doesn't fit into the economic picture as we

see it today in British Columbia because we are resource-based

and we haven't thought in those terms — we've talked in those

terms. But to do something about it and to take the second step

is very, very important: secure a supply of reasonably priced

steel for secondary industry and construction in British

Columbia.

Secondly, we saw the role of the pipeline and the role of

transportation in the west. We have to be prepared, if our

views about the Mackenzie valley pipeline do not prevail, to be

in a competitive position. But I say that is a secondary

proposition and I think we can supply steel, we can build pipe

mills, we can build other mills and take a competitive

position, provide the jobs and secure the supply of steel.

This was an attractive thing for British Columbia and this

was the kind of concept that was before us when we decided to

go to Japan and talk seriously with Japanese steel producers.

It is not so much a question that they wish to export

pollution, it is a question that they have no room. Maybe

that's another way of talking environment — and I think it is.

But it is not pollution as such; it's no room as such.

Secondly, what prevailed upon the Japanese steel producers

more than anything is the fact that we supply the greater

portion of coking coal to their steel-producing factories — coking coal

upon which they will have to depend for many, many

years to come. We put it to them that the value of that

resource to them is important. We wish to see it developed but

we wish to see something back other than just the going rate

for the coal. We feel that we should have some investment by

them in our province.

The discussion then revealed that they were motivated by

that fact. They thought that if they were going to have a good

relationship with a supplier of a raw resource vital,

absolutely integrally important, to the production of steel in

Japan, they would have to provide the investment — which is

another point you raised — to establish some steel production

in B.C.

Thirdly, it was important to us in our discussions

[ Page 1168 ]

that we just not use coking coal, provide a handful of jobs,

produce slab steel and export steel. That was important. We

said we don't want a Kitimat situation which, for a long-term

situation, will only supply a handful of jobs, and really

export power.

We have an agreement, which was tabled and made public, for

a feasibility study which indicates we are looking at the

fabrication of steel within this jurisdiction, for export as

well as domestic use. That is also being looked at in the

feasibility study. I cannot predict what the feasibility study

will say, but it is our expectation that this will be feasible,

that we can produce rolled steel pipe, construction steel,

re-bar, and supply existing plants as well in this province

from the slab steel produced in a blast furnace operation.

Remember always that we are also looking, coincidentally, to a

direct reduction process in the Province of B.C. which will

produce, perhaps, 750,000 or 1.2 million tons, rather than the

two million to four million tons of a blast furnace — a more

modest approach.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, I'm sorry. A blast furnace production,

Mr. Chairman, is when we use metallurgical coal on the iron ore

to produce pig iron and steel. Direct reduction is a process of

electric arc furnaces and natural gas which produces steel on a

smaller scale.

In terms of the power use of this kind of thing, the

feasibility study is analyzing carefully what the priorities of

the use of natural gas are.

The three major strategic areas, and why this government has

embarked upon feasibility study, are: (1) a secure supply of

steel, either from blast furnace or in direct reduction; (2) to

take a part of the western Canadian market; and (3) to provide

jobs. We will do that using either the blast furnace approach

or the direct reduction approach, and in keeping with both, the

barter system providing for the input of investment here and

the spin-off in the steel industry of fabrication of pipe and

so on.

Dealing briefly with the oil refinery, I could state clearly

that it's a totally different kind of operation. The source of

crude oil from Alberta is, of course, the source that is

contemplated. There is no other source you can contemplate

under these circumstances. What the Hon. Member misunderstood

from Premier Lougheed's statements is that Lougheed is talking

about a petrochemical complex. The Government of British

Columbia is talking, when it has talked about the oil refinery,

of an oil refinery.

There are several differences. A petrochemical complex produces

products related to the petroleum industry: plastics spin-off and so

on. An oil refinery is interested entirely in the product use of

gasoline and its by-products in a local market situation. You cannot

transport product lines through pipes, railcar or truck without

offending economics and environment. This is clearly understood in

Alberta. To transport even from Merritt to the consumer market is

economically undesirable. It costs a fortune to have product lines, and

the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) can explain that

to you.

Crude line is one line; product lines are several and

they're impractical. So you put your oil refineries close to

the consumer. That is what is envisaged by the B.C. government.

If we were to get logically into a petrochemical enterprise, we

would do so with emphasis on natural gas.

What are our priorities for the use of natural gas as a

petrochemical resource? Not crude oil. That is clearly

Alberta's jurisdiction. They understand our position and they

agree with it. They certainly do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Have you a letter, or any other

indication?

HON. MR. LAUK: I've got an indication of agreement from the

late Minister of Industrial Development in Alberta. I'm not

sure whether he was fired before or after the agreement.

There's always a concern about the priorities of the use of

crude oil in Alberta. I don't think there's as much as the Hon.

Member indicates. We should be concerned about it. We have to

have refinery capacity in the consumer area, or fairly close to

it, for economic reasons. We need a source of crude, and I

think that Alberta will be a safe source of crude.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that

we do not think of crude oil petrochemical manufacturing here

in the province, but we certainly can look realistically at gas

petrochemical refinement in the province.

Because of whatever percentage of insecurity there is in the

source of crude from Alberta, I think we should have a

continuous programme of drilling and exploring within our own

jurisdiction. That is another

chapter of the story which should

be discussed some day.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to say, first of all, that

the remarks of the Minister with regard to the survey being

done for the steel mill are very interesting.

I would like to correct the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) that we do not import bauxite and make aluminum

out of it. We import alumina and make aluminum out of it. It is

partially finished in the country of its….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: Would the Member yield so I

[ Page 1169 ]

can answer one last question of the Hon. Member? It will

only take two seconds.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. LAUK : I'm afraid he might leave….

MR. PHILLIPS: I want you to remember this, though, in the

future.

HON. MR. LAUK : The interesting thing about the

Kitimat thing, as the Hon. Member who just yielded indicated in part of

the subject of his talk, is this: I am interested in the energy report

of some years ago dealing with Hat Creek coal. It has a fly ash content

from which alumina can be achieved. I think that kind of investigation

could be accelerated coincidentally with the nuclear power acceleration

in the south.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would also like to remind the Second Member

for Victoria that there are….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: We've got alumina in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would the Hon. Member for South

Peace River continue with his speech? I'm sure the others will

listen attentively.

MR. PHILLIPS: I should point out that there are — and I

believe the Minister will back me up on this — steel mills in

the world and in Japan relatively free from pollution. I think

that regardless of what we are talking about, we must be

completely honest with ourselves and realize that steel mills

can be pollution free.

I would like to say just a few words to the Minister about

the feasibility study. I must say that I hope, to preserve and

improve the job situation in British Columbia, that this

industry does become feasible.

I would like to remind the Minister of some commitments he

has made to outlying areas of the province to diversify

population. I might just remind him of the purposes of the

General Development Agreement,

schedule A, which he signed on

March 28, 1974. This is the general agreement between the

would like to remind the Minister that in this agreement he

states that the sub-agreements should include:

"…such objectives in the body of the agreement as

to improve the opportunities for productive employment and access to

those opportunities in areas or economic sectors of British Columbia

which, relative to other areas or sectors of the province, require

special measures to

realize development potential."

I would like very much for the Minister to keep that

statement in mind when he comes to making the selection for the

site of the steel mill, should the feasibility study prove it

worthwhile.

He goes on to say:

"…and to promote balanced development among areas

British Columbia, to encourage the equitable distribution of

the benefits of such development."

That, Mr. Chairman, is a very broad, encompassing statement.

However, he goes on also in this agreement to say:

"In carrying out these strategies, the immediate

priorities

are to apply co-ordinated action to overcome impediments to

development and concentrate on significant development

opportunities that will activate under-utilized and uncommitted

resources, initially in the northwest, the Kootenays and the

northeast."

The key statement here, of course, is "uncommitted resources…(of)

the northeast."

One reason that the steel mill would be perfectly feasible

in the northeastern sector of the province, of course, is the

tremendous amount of coal which at the present time is

uncommitted and unutilized. The Minister can correct me if I'm

wrong when I say they are uncommitted. Maybe he has information

of which I am not aware through the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources. But to my knowledge, the vast…. I say

"vast," and I don't think the people of this province

realize that the coal deposits in the northeastern part of the

province would even dwarf the coal deposits in the southeast

part of the province, and the potential for development in that

area is far greater than the Kaiser development or the Fording

Coal development in the southeast portion.

Also, the number of

miles to tidewater, over the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, are

less than they are from the southeast portion. That's something

I wish the Minister would take note of, if he's not aware of it

now. That is, the coal can be transported over less number of

rail miles to Squamish or to Prince Rupert, less number of

railway miles than the Kaiser coal has to come to reach Roberts

Bank. Not many people are aware of that, We have a tendency to

think that the Peace River area is up in the Yukon somewhere,

and it's not. It's basically in the centre of the province.

The other item we must remember is that that area is served

by the British Columbia Railway, which is our railroad. Another

point I'd like to talk to the Minister about, to remind him of,

is the untapped potential for hydro power in that area still.

It could be developed, utilizing the vast reservoir behind the

Bennett Dam, which makes it much more economical be develop

hydro on the remaining sites on the Peace

[ Page 1170 ]

River than, certainly, other areas in the province.

If we want to talk about cheap power, and the use of power

for one process he was talking about in developing steel,

certainly that power is there. The coal is there. You might say

that we'd have to transport raw material overland into the site

of the steel mill if it was in that particular area. However,

when the coal is developed, there will also be an export….

The unit trains could be used to take out coal. There's

certainly enough to run several steel mills and still export

large quantities of the coal. Then you'd run the unit trains

back carrying in the raw material. So it makes it perfectly

feasible.

One of the other difficulties that would have to be overcome

in establishing a steel mill — as the Minister has said, it's

the reason Japan wants to get rid of its steel industry or to

locate it elsewhere — is the tremendous amount of land that it

takes to locate a steel mill. We're talking about thousands and

thousands of acres of land. Is it 200,000 acres of land — 20,000 acres?

HON. MR. LAUK: 2,000 acres.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that isn't the information…. I stand

corrected. The information I received from the group which was

in our area looking at land stated that they certainly needed a

lot more than 2,000 acres. They were talking in terms of 20,000 – 30,000 acres.

HON. MR. LAUK: It depends. If you just have a blast furnace,

2,000 acres; if you want to have ancillary facilities….

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, even 2,000 acres of land, in some areas,

is a tremendous amount of land. So in that area, you really

don't have that much problem with transportation. You have a

ready supply of power; you have a ready supply of natural gas.

You also have an area — two areas in the Peace River — which

this plant could be located on and have the third requirement,

of course, which is a ready supply of fresh water. Certainly

the area has probably more fresh water than anywhere else in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: Who have you been talking to?

MR. PHILLIPS: I've just been listening to you, Mr. Minister.

You were the one who was telling me that these were the

requirements.

HON. MR. LAUK: You're an awfully smart fellow.

MR. PHILLIPS: So I'm just saying that all of this is

available, as I say, to back up your own agreements, your own

intentions, where you've said that outlying areas of the province

should be developed, particularly to diversify population and to take

advantage of uncommitted resources. So when you start talking about

doing surveys for a steel mill on Qualicum Beach or even in Kitimat

itself, Mr. Chairman, which is your area, you'd be much further ahead

to look at an area which has a good manpower supply, has all of the

natural resources required and has an abundance of land.

Now if I might just take a moment, I'd like to speak about

the other item that I was going to talk about. The Minister

mentioned that we would be producing steel to supply pipeline,

and certainly that is the area where the future pipeline growth

of the continent is going to be. I think, whether we like it or

not, whether it happens this year or five years from now, we're

going to see a pipeline down the Mackenzie delta.

With the tremendous demand for our natural resources, and

particularly the natural gas in the Prudhoe Bay area and in the

Mackenzie delta area, with the demand, even if it's just to

supply Canada, you're going to see that pipeline. The steel

required to build that pipeline would keep several refineries

going for quite a few years. Certainly, once the major pipeline

is built, Mr. Minister, for years there will be requirement for

additional feeder lines and pipelines. If you're going to

supply steel to that particular industry, why, you're going to

have less transportation costs to supply this steel…

HON. MR. LAUK: Have you got a copy of the report?

MR. PHILLIPS: …than you are in other areas of the

province. So I just wanted to remind the Minister, while the

subject of a steel mill was on the floor.

I just wanted to remind the Minister of these areas of

concern for his feasibility study. If he takes them under

consideration, I'm sure it will assist him and his group who

are doing the study in coming to a much easier conclusion.

Certainly, I want to be of help to the Minister and I want to

be of help to those who are looking for jobs in this province.

I want to particularly be of help to the Minister in making

this decision. So I thought that while the subject was on the

floor of the Legislature I would reiterate some of the pluses

that our area has for this steel mill.

HON. MR. LAUK: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the Member's

theory of the backhaul transportation economics is quite

correct. If the press will listen carefully so they won't stop

me in the corridor on the way to the washroom anymore, the

sites that are being considered in phase 1 are: east Vancouver

Island, Nanaimo and Bowser areas; north coast, Prince Rupert

and Kitimat areas; north central east, Prince George and the

Peace River. These are the six

[ Page 1171 ]

sites still in phase 1. We are close to making a decision to

narrow it to three — one in each area — for the more detailed

feasibility work.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I hope to make it soon. I don't want to tie

it down until the executive committee reviews the material.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: They'll be meeting in early May. I'll get a

report back. Somewhere after that, we'll try and make a

decision.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then it will be narrowed down to three?

HON. MR. LAUK: It will be narrowed down to three in each of

those areas: east Vancouver Island, north coast, north central

east. We've included the Peace River because of the arguments

that you've raised.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I have a few

remarks to make to this Minister.

HON. MR. LAUK: Keep it clean.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I certainly will, Mr. Minister.

A lot of discussion has taken place on the northwest

agreement. I believe it was announced July, 1973, if I recall,

by the Premier, but we haven't seen much dirt moved since that

time. In fact, nothing. The talk continues to go on. I believe

the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) referred to it in

his discussion and I also believe that the Minister didn't

reply at all. I'd like to hear where he thinks that agreement

is, because it certainly affects the northwest.

As the Member for Columbia River mentioned, the British

Columbia Railway connection with the main line railroads, the

CPR and CNR, is badly needed and has been for years. It's in

this northwest agreement, as I understand it. When is something

going to happen? Do we have to wait for a catastrophe to the

mainline railroads in the Fraser canyon to expedite this? What

has to take place?

When he was up earlier the Minister challenged me about a

copper smelter because I had said in the budget debate that

there would never be a copper smelter built in British Columbia

as long as this government was in power.

HON. MR. LAUK: Stake your seat on it.

MR. FRASER: I reiterate that. It is my feeling that that will

never happen as long as this government is in power…

HON. MR. LAUK: Will you resign?

MR. FRASER: …because of Bill 31 that we passed in this

Legislature and the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) who

was here and guided it through.

HON. MR. LAUK: Order.

MR. FRASER: I think that we're talking about a copper

smelter. Mr. Chairman, don't take your orders from that

Minister. I'm glad you haven't.

We were certainly in the discussion stage in 1972. I

believe, again, there has been a task force put out about the

location of a copper smelter. I don't know where that's at,

other than it came under the Minister of Mines. The Minister of

Economic Development no doubt has something to do with it and

he can tell us something about when they are going to report

about the feasibility of the copper smelter.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I realize that.

MR. CHABOT: It will never happen under your government.

MR. FRASER: On the subject of task forces in the northwest,

I think, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHABOT: I'll stake my seat on that.

HON. MR. LAUK: Will you stake your seat on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Cariboo has

the floor.

HON. MR. LAUK: This is history in the making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. LAUK: You say that you'll resign your seat if we

build a copper smelter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister and the

Hon. Member for Columbia River save their dispute for the

corridors?

MR. FRASER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Put them out

in the corridor; that might enhance the debate of….

Interjection.

[ Page 1172 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm going up there to run against him.

MR. CHABOT: Come on up!

MR. FRASER: Again, on the northwest development. Thinking of

all task forces that have gone through the northwest, Mr.

Chairman, I feel that this government owes all these people an

apology for building up their hopes, keeping them built up for

just about two years now and no action whatsoever.

I'm amazed the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) hasn't

had something to say about it. He represents the good riding of

Prince Rupert. Why haven't you, Mr. Chairman, the Member for

Skeena, and the Members for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and Fort George

(Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) been up hollering about these task forces

that are going through there? All the community leaders along

what we call the west line up there, from Prince George to

Prince Rupert, say they are fed up and all they've got from

this government so far is task-force-itis. They want some

action. I don't think they really mind whether you tell them

that they aren't going to get something, or they are, but they

want answers rather than just a task force inviting them to all

these meetings to put input in and then nothing happens.

I was interested, Mr. Chairman, in the news release just

received from the Minister Without (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler)

regarding the steel mill, and I think that since this session

started — I'm talking about the Minister Without — somebody

should check his attendance record. I don't think he's been in

this House 50 per cent of the time since February 18.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, you can call it what you want, Mr. Second

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings), but it's a

fact so maybe that's why you are a little concerned that his

attendance is probably less than 50 per cent.

What got me onto the Minister Without Portfolio is the press

release that he issued about the proposed steel mill, and I

want to read it. If you have never heard doubletalk, I'll read

you some now from this press release. The Minister Without

Portfolio says here: "It brings to six the number of locations

being considered as sites for a steel mill and marks the first

time Prince George has been included in the study." The

Minister, by the way, has just announced that no doubt they

have cut that in half to three, and I wonder whether Prince

George is one of the three that are out.

In any case, the Minister Without Portfolio goes on and

says:

"'There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to

locating the steel mill in Prince George,' said Nunweiler, 'and I want

to emphasize right now that the city is only one of six possibilities

being studied by the Department of Economic Development. Factors which

favour Prince George's location for a steel mill,' he said, 'include

its role as a major transportation centre for the province, its large

population with an associated percentage of skilled labourers, its

access to a