1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2291 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105). Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading –– 2291

Pharmacy Act (Bill 106). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading –– 2291

Oral questions

Retention of Dr. McDougall. Mr. Chabot –– 2291

Completion date for Squamish boxcar facilities.

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 2291

Employment of students by Department of Consumer Services.

Mr. Wallace –– 2291

Plans to freeze selling price of homes. Mr. Curtis –– 2292

Requests from egg producers to restrain marketing board proceedings. Mr. Gardom –– 2292

Fee paid to McDougall for work on Columbia Treaty.

Mr. Chabot –– 2292

Landings of government jets at strike-bound airports.

Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 2292

Withdrawal of motion 24 to permit debate on Skagit.

Mr. Gibson –– 2293

Egg Marketing Board order for payment of levies.

Mr. Wallace –– 2293

Housing developments on OMI lands in Mission.

Mr. Wallace –– 2293

Selection of Fraser Valley College council.

Mr. Schroeder –– 2294

Plans for roads and bridges in event of Gabriola ferry terminal.

Mr. Curtis –– 2294

Release of B.C. submission to federal Skagit hearings.

Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 2294

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce estimates On vote 125.

Mr. Chabot –– 2294

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 2297

Hon. Mr. Lauk –– 2298

Mr. Smith –– 2301

Mr. Wallace –– 2302

Hon. Mr. Lauk –– 2309

Mr. McGeer –– 2311

Hon. Mr. Lauk –– 2315

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill 75).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald –– 2316

Mr. Bennett –– 2317

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 2319

Mr. Barnes –– 2321

MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to

welcome today a group of very fine young men who are visiting from

Kent, England. They are a touring rugby team. They must be fine young

men; they play rugby.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to welcome the

rugby gentlemen too. Also in the gallery I'm sure you will be pleased

to know there is a young couple, Mr. and Mrs. Helmut Fandrich, from the

great constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain. They don't eat ice

cream but I believe their children do, and I'd ask the Members to give

them a very warm welcome.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Also today in the

gallery are about 15 students from a contingent of about 40 students

from the University of Notre Dame located in the City of Nelson. I'd

like the Members to join us in welcoming them.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Among the visitors

to the gallery today, but not yet present, will be about 20 students

from North Saanich Junior Secondary School. I'd like the House to know

of their presence later today.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, in that

unmentionable place there is one Iain Hunter, a bagpipe-loving

journalist, now stationed in Ottawa but known to us all. We're

delighted to see him.

Introduction of bills.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Landlord and Tenant Act .

Bill 105 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.

PHARMACY ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Cocke, Bill 106, Pharmacy Act ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RETENTION OF DR. McDOUGALL

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

Lands, Forests and Water Resources advise the House if Dr. Ian

McDougall of Dalhousie University still has an ongoing commission from

the government to work on position papers in respect to the Columbia

River treaty? If so, at what fee?

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

The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

COMPLETION DATE FOR.

SQUAMISH BOXCAR FACILITY

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Does the Hon.

Premier have any certain date as to the completion of the B.C. Rail

boxcar-building facilities in Squamish and when the first cars will

roll off the assembly line?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hopefully in August.

EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS BY

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer

Services about the press release of April 4 which announced the department would

be employing a total of 40 students during the summer. Can the Minister tell

the House how many of these jobs had already been filled prior to the press

release?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that 18 young people have been interviewed and accepted for these programmes.

MR. WALLACE: Had any information been made available prior to the date

of the press release that these jobs would be available?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker. We were looking into research projects

in line with other work we were doing in the department, and not necessarily

under this programme. However, the programme arrived at a good time so we incorporated

it there.

MR. WALLACE: Were there any persons in the government side of the House

who were aware of these jobs prior to the press release on April 4 — MLAs

in particular?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2292 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Could the Minister please indicate to the House how

the candidates for the selection of these positions were chosen and how they

were notified?

HON. MS. YOUNG: The bulk of the people who were interviewed were contacted

at the law faculty at UBC because five of the projects have a high legal component

to them. It was felt that to get the best students for these projects it would

be necessary to contact them as early as possible. I believe it was done in

that manner.

MRS. JORDAN: Did the House understand correctly that the Minister had

previously committed her department to hire these students; then, when the vote

and the statement came from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) about the

$25 million for summer employment, this practice of hiring in terms of paying

the students was changed? Where before they were to be paid out of your vote,

they will now be paid out of the major $25 million vote.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, we had some research projects in mind and

we were investigating them.

Yes, the summer programme arrived about simultaneously as we were

designing the projects we had in mind relative to product testing and

to trade practices throughout the province.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In essence you now have 18

vacancies in your vote that are being filled under this other payment programme.

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker, those are permanent positions that

you are referring to under our vote, but we have funds in the vote, if you recall,

for research projects and for….

MRS. JORDAN: You're now paying them out of the other fund.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, we have requested this.

PLANS TO FREEZE

SELLING PRICE OF HOMES

MR. CURTIS: In light of widespread rumours concerning

possible provincial government action to limit or freeze the sale price

of homes and other residential property, would the Premier indicate if

this matter is under consideration at the present time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question has been answered already.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think it's important, Mr. Speaker. Those

widespread rumours exist because certain Members don't attend the

House. It's been stated twice in this House, once by the Minister and

once by me, that there is no truth in that rumour. Attendance by the

Members would help scotch that rumour.

REQUESTS FROM EGG PRODUCERS TO

RESTRAIN MARKETING BOARD PROCEEDINGS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Agriculture,

Mr. Speaker: has the Minister received any requests from egg producers to prohibit

the marketing board from initiating proceedings for unpaid levies?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Not since October or whatever

the date was in 1972.

FEE PAID TO McDOUGALL

FOR WORK ON COLUMBIA TREATY

MR. CHABOT: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources: could he tell me what consultant fee was paid to Dr.

McDougall for the work he undertook on behalf of the government

relative to the Columbia River Treaty?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The work, Mr. Speaker, was undertaken for

B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, the Crown corporation. I suggest a

question on the order paper might be most appropriate.

MR. CHABOT: One supplementary question: could the Minister

advise whether or not Dr. McDougall is related in any way to General

A.G.L. McNaughton and what that relationship might be?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He's the late general's grandson, Mr. Speaker.

LANDINGS OF GOVERNMENT JETS

AT STRIKE-BOUND AIRPORTS

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

Minister of Transport and Communications: are provincial government

Citation jets landing at airports in the province where firefighting

services have been withdrawn?

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

It's my understanding that they have been, and it was on the

understanding that planes under 25,000 pounds were allowed to land. As

a matter of fact, I was on one of them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right, you were.

[ Page 2293 ]

May I ask the Minister of Labour what steps he

intends to take to curb this strike-breaking by provincial government

cabinet Ministers and the Department of Transport and Communications.

(Laughter.)

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I'd like to comment, Mr.

Speaker, that I'm certainly pleased to see the Liberal Party at long

last concerned about strike-breaking. I want to assure the Member, Mr.

Speaker, that if I receive representation from the federal government,

under whose jurisdiction this dispute resides, I would certainly

consider any assistance we could give.

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION 21

TO PERMIT DEBATE ON SKAGIT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question

for the Hon. Member for Alberni. In view of the extreme importance of

the question of the Skagit Valley and in view of the fact that the

rules of the House as they stand at the moment prevent us from

discussing that issue on the estimates of the Minister of Lands and

Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) because of the Hon. Member's motion, would

he consider asking leave of the House to withdraw for the time being

his motion 21?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that that is a permitted question,

in that it's the right of every Member to have on the order paper any

matter he wishes without being attacked for having it there. I know

that the Hon. Member is not attacking him for having it there, but it's

a right without question.

EGG MARKETING BOARD ORDER

FOR PAYMENT OF LEVIES

MR. WALLACE: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can

tell the House if the Egg Marketing Board has ordered six northern egg

producers to pay back levies or face court action?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I've received no such information, Mr. Speaker, but it could have happened.

MR. WALLACE: Well, a supplemental question: has the Minister

received a written request from the Northern B.C. Egg Producers

Association to prohibit the marketing board from taking action?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Unless something has come in more recently than I have seen, I've had no such request for at least six months.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

ON OMI LANDS IN MISSION

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Housing. The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) is reported in the Fraser Valley Record

as advising Mission council that housing development on OMI lands will

be two years away. Has the Minister a timetable which would see

development this year?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There's no timetable that's been set on

that. Negotiations or discussions are proceeding between Dunhill

Developments and the city, I believe. I might point out that if that

information came from a press release, there were many things which

were erroneous in that press release.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: does the Minister

have full cooperation from Mission council on this project or are there

some unresolved questions? If so, what are those unresolved questions?

MR. SPEAKER: One at a time, please.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think there are some unresolved

questions. It would be somewhat presumptuous of me to say what some of

the hesitations held by the council or their advisers are. I think that

one of the biggest holdups is that they have not had a planner. We are

presently looking at ways and means in which we could assist them in

the retention of a planner, perhaps on an interim basis.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Supplementary on the same

subject: in view of the fact that the Mission council refused Dunhill

Developments, both before and after the government takeover, a land-use

contract, would you comment on a statement by Mayor Harris of Mission

that the Minister applied pressure to overrule council? Is this

statement by Mayor Harris true?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: As I said earlier, I think that some of

the reporting there…. I was phoned up by a reporter who requested

information. He gave me

interpretations of what Mayor Harris has said

and I was not going to get into an "I said, he said" type of a

situation over the phone with a press member who for all I know was not

even a member of the press, and that's been known to happen before. The

Member for Dewdney has been in touch with Mayor Harris since then and I

believe there was some misunderstanding reported in that incident.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, just a quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is it true, then, that the

[ Page 2294 ]

government plans to go ahead with this development

despite the fact that the development has twice been refused a land-use

contract by the municipality of Mission?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, as I say, probably the major reason

that was put forward at that meeting was that they did not have a

planner at that time. They felt it would take two months to hire a

planner and probably a further two months for the planner to

acclimatize himself to the Mission area so that he could make some

positive input into this thing.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary: does the Minister of Housing or

anyone in his department or Dunhill have an application to remove any

portion of these lands from the land freeze?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We're awaiting the decision of the Land Commission on this.

MRS. JORDAN: You do have an application?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, I don't say that we have an application in there

— not that I'm aware of. I would have to take that question as notice.

SELECTION OF FRASER

VALLEY COLLEGE COUNCIL

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

Education, Mr. Speaker: what progress can be reported on the formation

of the college council for the Fraser Valley College?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Four or five school

boards have sent in their recommendations for the person they wish to

represent them. We're waiting for the fifth board. As soon as that

comes in then the cabinet will appoint theirs and that will be ready to

go.

MR. SCHROEDER: Supplementary: is a principal being considered?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The principal can't be considered until the college

council is formed.

MR. SCHROEDER: Further supplementary: will the native people be represented

on that council?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they will be.

PLANS FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES

IN EVENT OF GABRIOLA FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways: would the Minister

indicate if any senior member of his department is involved in preliminary planning

for roads and/or bridges which would be required on Gabriola Island or adjacent

islands in the event that a major ferry terminal is established on Gabriola

Island?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, my

department is actively involved in looking at the routes mentioned in

case a decision is made within the Department of Transport and

Communications.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary on the question: is such a route likely to involve Mudge Island?

HON. MR. LEA: I would take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

RELEASE OF B.C. SUBMISSION

TO FEDERAL SKAGIT HEARINGS

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

Water Resources, Mr. Speaker: when will the B.C. submission to the

Federal Power hearings on Skagit be made public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As I indicated last week, I expect to make a statement at the beginning of this week, so it's fairly shortly, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE

(continued)

On vote 125: Minister's office, $75,976.49.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I have just a few brief

questions to the Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) as well as a few brief

corrections of statements he made on Friday last.

In replying to a question put to him regarding the amount of capital

expenditure and capital investment in the province, the Minister stated

as follows:

Mr. Chairman, capital investment jumped 103 per cent

between 1972 and 1973 to over $4 billion. It climbed to an estimated

$13.8 billion, an increase of 1.9…. I'm sorry, I'm talking about Gross

Provincial Product. Capital investment is 103 per cent; it was over $4

billion last year.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) questioned that 103 per

cent and the Minister confirmed it was 103 per cent. The Member for

[ Page 2295 ]

Columbia River interjected again and said "No way."

When I look at your annual report, "The British Columbia

Summary of

Economic Activities for 1973," on page 42 regarding capital investment

I find the following statement:

"In 1973, new capital and repair expenditures in

British Columbia rose by approximately 10 per cent over the

corresponding level of spending in 1972. Intended expenditures in the

province are reported to total $4.1 billion, relative to $3.76 billion

for 1972."

That's 10 per cent. That's a vast difference between 10 per cent and

103 per cent increase in capital investment in the province. I'd hoped

at the time that the Minister would state to us that he'd made a

serious error in confirming these percentage increases in the

Legislature last Friday, but he didn't see fit to do so. All that this

increase in capital investment in the province really does is take care

of the inflationary spiral that took place in 1973. In other words, the

capital investment record for 1973 is nil as compared to 1972.

Now, we did discuss on Friday last just very briefly the question of

trade missions around the world. In view of the fact that the Province

of Ontario has a great variety of trade missions proposed for this year

— they have 200, in fact, coming out of that province to explore for

new markets for the sale of their products in the world markets — I'm

wondering if the Minister could tell us what type of products his

department is attempting to establish markets for, what areas in the

world, what numbers of trade missions he has projected for the

forthcoming year.

Question number two is one dealing with advertising in your

department. I notice a lot of advertising coming out of your

department. I want to know how effective it is and whether it's doing

the intended job that it's supposed to do. I see here one in particular

that caught my imagination and caught my eye. It was the B.C. Affairs,

winter of 1973, and it was headed: "If you have an unconventional

business idea, maybe you should talk to an unconventional government."

Well, I'll have to agree that that statement is true — it is an

unconventional government we're dealing with. Lo and behold, not only

do we have the Minister's name boldly imprinted at the bottom of this

ad, but we have the picture of the Premier, which goes to show how

unconventional that government over there is.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Send it over and I'll autograph it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: It's not a bad picture, but the people to whom

the Premier is talking are not looking very happy. They're looking

suspicious. They have fear, they have apprehension in their hearts.

But talking about unconventional government, certainly you have an

unconventional government. Look at the terror tactics you used in the

takeover of Plateau Mills in Vanderhoof. That's unconventional. You

better believe it is. Look at the type of procedure you used in the

taking over of Kootenay Forest Products, which Crestbrook Forest

Industries of the East Kootenays had attempted to secure for an assured

supply of wood chips in order to expand their mill to make it an

economically viable unit. What did you do? You took over the mill. You

didn't give these people an opportunity to make an economic, viable

unit in the East Kootenays. Is this your direction — to take over every

time some firm becomes available, by shutting out the possibility of

someone securing an assured supply of raw material? Is that the

approach?

Then you have the audacity to travel to Japan, because after all the

majority interest in Crestbrook rests in the hands of people from

Japan. Then in turn, you turn around and say you're going to have a

trade mission — a trade junket to Japan — to attract investment capital

to British Columbia. What do you think the takeover of Kootenay Forest

Products by your government is going to do with your relationship with

the Japanese, who are eager to invest in not only British Columbia but

in other parts of this world as well? You've denied them the

opportunity of expanding their mill into an economically viable unit.

That's unconventional — certainly it is.

It's fully unconventional as well for the Premier to make statements

that he's going to kick the censored out of certain groups of people

that come into his office. Certainly that ad is right on when it comes

to being unconventional.

It's unconventional as well when you have the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) talking about tourism….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote we're considering before us?

MR. CHABOT: I am. I'm confining it to the unconventional government ad here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the remarks should be pointed to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. CHABOT: I am, Mr. Chairman. I am because that department

over there carried out a study last year — unfortunately I don't have

it, but it's as thick as this volume here — indicating very clearly the

investment opportunities that exist in the tourist industry in British

Columbia. The Minister will admit to carrying out this kind of a study.

[ Page 2296 ]

Now we find that the Minister carries out a study telling about the

recreational and tourist opportunities for investment dollars in

British Columbia. Yet we find another Minister saying: "Yankee go

home." How more unconventional and inconsistent can you be?

Now I want to speak very briefly about the proposed trip to Japan.

As I've stated just briefly a few moments ago, there is an eagerness on

the part of Japanese capital to find places to invest. Canada's been a

relatively good location for their investment capital because they've

invested approximately $300 million in Canada in the last few years, of

which the majority has been invested in British Columbia, somewhere in

the neighbourhood of between 60 and 70 per cent. Some of it is in

mining, three pulpmills — one of which I referred to a little earlier —

sawmills and one plywood plant. I'm wondering if the Minister would

tell us what his intentions are when he goes to Japan to speak to the

investment world over there as to what kind of industries we're

attempting to attract in British Columbia and where we want the

investment dollars to be directed.

We heard a lot a couple of years ago about the possibility of

getting a Toyota assembly plant here in the province, but that's never

materialized, even though you have been given a real opportunity to do

so since having formed the government. Just a word of advice — I think

that when you go to Japan you have a responsibility to tell these

people what your policies are and what your philosophy is as well.

There appears to be a strange anxiety on the part of that government to

prove that it is capable of attracting secondary industry and

investment capital to develop secondary industry in British Columbia,

in view of the fact it has failed so miserably on that much talked

about trip to Europe and into England last summer in which they were

going to get investment capital to invest in a steel plant in British

Columbia. That's turned out to be a fiasco — a nothing trip.

We see that Saskatchewan now is expanding their existing mill into a

major steel mill. We see the direction being taken by the Province of

Alberta to establish a steel mill there. In British Columbia we don't

have sufficient iron ore in this province to justify the establishment

of a steel mill. If we really believe in the type of cooperation the

Minister has talked about between the western provinces, maybe we

should leave the steel mill operation and construction of the

facilities for steel to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Maybe your efforts should be directed elsewhere, where the Japanese

could come and develop some of our natural resources here at home

rather than steel. Are you going to Japan because you failed so

miserably in Europe and you will accept almost any deal when you get

there? Is that what you are telling the people of British Columbia?

There is one other thing I think you should take into consideration

when you are in Japan. You should talk about coal. Tell those people

what your philosophy is regarding the natural resources of this

province. We know at this time that Japan is looking to Siberia for

coal; certainly they are looking to Australia. The next real market for

coal shipments to Japan rests with the U.S.S.R. At the moment there is

practically a formal signing of an agreement between Russia and Japan

for the movement of 10 million tons of coal from Siberia commencing in

1982 or 1983.

Yet we find in British Columbia, where we have an abundance of this

raw material, the only two real mines producing are in the Kootenays:

Fording River Coal Limited and Kaiser which jointly have approximately

7.5 million tons of shipment per year. Yet we see the Russians will be

shipping substantially more in the foreseeable future to Japan.

What is the future for coal in British Columbia? What is the future

for the export of coal to Japan? What is the future of Sukunka coal

which the government is supposed to have a 40 per cent interest in?

The Minister, in answering on Friday, said we are not only going

over there to discuss a steel mill; we are going over there to discuss

mariculture as well. On March 25, the Department of Recreation and

Conservation, which has a Marine Resources Branch, talked about the

allocation of dollars for a cost-sharing programme to promote and to

improve the oyster industry in British Columbia. They say this in the

press release of March 25:

"The two governments, represented federally by the

Fisheries and Marine Service of the Department of the Environment and

provincially by the Marine Resources Branch (Commercial Fisheries) of

the Department of Recreation and Conservation, are hoping to further

experimental programmes and to provide economic evaluation.

"The companies involved are developing new methods to

increase the effectiveness of existing operations by improving the

flotation systems used in the raft culture of oysters and by building a

processing plant, pumping facilities and tray suspension systems to be

used for the tray culture of oysters.

"With limited foreshore in British Columbia suitable

for the beach culture of oysters, the success or failure of these

projects could have a substantial bearing on the future of the oyster

industry."

We have established the fact that we have people who are

experimenting in mariculture in British Columbia. So the Minister wants

to go to Japan to experiment. Maybe he could tell the House when he

[ Page 2297 ]

stands in his place just what kind of discussions

will take place relative to mariculture and what type of products he is

talking about. He could also tell the House just what experts from

British Columbia will participate in his journey to Japan to establish

the methods used in that country. Will he be taking some of these

experts from the Marine Resources Branch of the Department of

Recreation and Conservation?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would like

to address a few questions to the Minister. However, I might say I was

grateful to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for referring to

that ad which appeared on unconventional businesses. It might occur to

some people that nobody would respond to that ad, but the shareholders

of Dunhill Development did and they found that it really works. If you

have an unconventional business, this government is the one to deal

with.

I thought the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was very kind on Friday when he complimented the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Charitable.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, no. Well, charitable, I suppose he

was. It's true; he is a great little Minister. I think it is improper

criticism for Members of the opposition to suggest, as they did last

Friday, that $86,000 was being spent to provide him with some sumptuous

office and so on. That is not true at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Et cetera."

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Et cetera. We could improve the stature of

that Minister by just buying him elevator shoes. (Laughter.) We don't

need $86,000. That would help. Maybe if that happened the Minister

would be able to see his way clear to bring before this committee his

annual report before we have to deal with his estimates so we can have

some idea of the way in which his department has fulfilled its

responsibilities. He has controlled the endeavours of the department

since he assumed that responsibility.

I think the House might consider making it absolutely obligatory

that Ministers do file their annual reports before coming before

committee for estimates. As a matter of fact, the wisdom of just such a

practice was amply disclosed when we considered the estimates of the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) last week. It was an

outstanding annual report which assisted the committee in the

deliberations on the various votes.

I would like to pose a couple of questions to the Minister. First of

all, with regard to the recently concluded agreement with the national

government, the so-called DREE contract. I am speaking of the only

contract that is operative, namely the one that provides for the

federal government to fund with the provincial government certain

survey projects connected with developments hopefully to take place in

northwest, northeast and southeastern segments of this province.

As I read that agreement, all projects in which the Government of

Canada will assist so far as funding is concerned must have been

approved by March 31, 1974. I wish the Minister would stand in his

place and tell the committee specifically the projects which were

developed by the provincial government, submitted to the federal

government and approved for joint financial assistance in accordance

with the terms of that agreement.

I think we should also have from the Minister some indication of the

groups or individuals who will be carrying out those survey projects

and, to the extent he can, the timing when those projects must be

complete. I notice in the agreement with the national government that

no contribution will be made by the federal government for payments in

respect to those projects after March 31, 1975. That would seem to

indicate to me that the survey projects must be undertaken and

completed by a year from now if we are to enjoy federal financial

assistance in respect of that operative contract.

I would also think we should be hearing from the Minister as to what

plans he and his department have with regard to development in the

northwest and northeastern areas of British Columbia. The Minister has

indicated that perhaps there is no hurry with some of these projects. I

think we should have some clear indication of the

schedule he may see

for the industrialization of the north, recognizing, as I know he does,

the clamour there has already been from people residing in those

northern communities for some clear indication of what is to take place.

Recognizing, as I know he does, the equally loud clamour there has

been from environmental groups regarding the care that must be taken

before we embark upon any major industrialization, particularly in the

northwest, I would like to know what schemes of development the

Minister foresees and what his timing might be for those schemes to

bear fruit.

Regarding the northeastern

section of the province, particularly

involving the Peace River, I would like to know the extent to which the

Minister is also engaged in similar studies there: what the nature of

industrial development in that area might be and, in particular, the

extent to which that industrialization, if and when it takes place,

will be of significant assistance to the agricultural community in the

Peace River.

We know that there is a significant forest industry potential in the

northeastern part of the province, but there is also tremendous

opportunity for expansion in

[ Page 2298 ]

agriculture which would be accelerated if we could

have some coexisting industrial base which would complement

agriculture. I would like to know from the Minister what he sees in

that regard as well.

With regard to the southeastern portion of the province and the

recent announcement by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) with respect to the reservation of

significant areas in that part of the province, would the Minister

indicate the extent to which that reservation — particularly in the

Purcell Range in those areas which are within the industrial complex or

forest complex of Kootenay Forest Products — to what extent he may see

that interfering with the secondary industrial development of that area?

The reason I pose these questions, Mr. Chairman, is because I

seriously wonder whether or not we are perhaps expecting too much from

this Minister and his department. I don't mean that as a criticism of

either the Minister or his department. What concerns me — and maybe the

Minister's answers can remove that concern — is that industrial

development in the Province of British Columbia is being handled not by

the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, as it is

presently known — soon to be known as the Department of Economic

Development — but in fact, Mr. Chairman, by other Ministries of this

government: the office of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett),

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

R.A. Williams), the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

I think that those four Ministers have already done more in respect

of secondary industrial development of this province than the

department which you would expect would have specific responsibility

for that area of endeavour.

I might also mention, Mr. Chairman, that there is one other Ministry

which has a very significant effect upon industrial development in this

province, and that's the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon.

Mr. Radford). In a very special way, with his ever-expanding budget, he

can bring pressures to bear and, in fact, can actually prohibit the

secondary or even primary industrial development of areas of this

province. I know already that steps he has taken have had a very

significant impact upon the desires of the government with respect to

the northeastern segment of this province.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that before we can pass the votes of this

Minister, and particularly his office, he should clearly indicate to us

exactly the steps that he is taking, what he expects to accomplish and

how those accomplishments will affect the future industrialization of

this province. He has spoken of economic diplomacy and industrial

strategy — all of which are fine-sounding phrases — but unless he can

indicate that he has some visions in this regard and indicate that he

and his department will be able to carry them out in the face of the

growing strengths of other government, it would seem to us that serious

questions are raised as to whether this department should be allowed to

continue.

Perhaps it should be allowed to be handled as it was in the previous

administration. There was not much vision and it was of very little

consequence, really. It was really controlled by the Minister of

Finance. If that's what we have, Mr. Chairman, then so be it. But I

don't believe that that is the role in which the Minister sees himself;

and it certainly isn't the way we've been led to expect that his

department, under his administration, will function.

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

Respecting the general development agreement, the interim planning

agreement, I'll have some particulars shortly this afternoon and

provide them to you. We got in under the deadline and we had planned

various surveys with no difficulty by the time the interim planning

agreement was signed. The terms and so on in specifics that you asked

for are not yet available. We don't know who is going to do it. We

don't know what the timetable is with specific surveys, but we can give

you a general outline of where we plan to do the studies and what for.

With respect to the northwest and the northeast, in particular the

northwest, a great deal of discussion and dialogue has been taking

place. We recently have ordered a study through the Environment and

Land Use Secretariat to determine the social impact of various changes

in terms of industrial development on the communities in the northwest.

We hope to have those kinds of studies on stream. Within the next

several months — over, let's say, the summer period into the fall —

various decisions of a development nature can be made as interim

reports from that study occur.

In other words, I don't foresee that we will have to wait for the

impact study of the secretariat to be completed before we start making

definite steps in that area. I wouldn't like to say specifically where

and how. I think a glance at the economic picture of the northwest

should indicate to you as a student of economy that perhaps we would

have to do something about Eurocan and a supply of chips.

We're going to have to do something about transportation in a real

way. You know of the negotiations that have been going on between this

province and the federal government with respect to the CNR. You know

about the philosophies and the arguments surrounding the development of

Prince Rupert as a port. These things will be continuing and hopefully

will be resolved.

With respect to the northeast, I will be tabling a preliminary survey report sometime in late May or

[ Page 2299 ]

early June from which specific studies of a

short-term nature — I mean of weeks in duration — will take place. A

specific subsidiary agreement will be signed, hopefully before the end

of the year, with respect to the northeast area. I am talking about

DREE and ourselves.

I am tabling the survey study to encourage discussion from the

people of that area and from other people who are interested in the

development of that area and who respond to some of the things that we,

as a department, say should be there. That dialogue I don't think has

to go on forever, but it has to go on. The feedback, I feel, is

particularly important. There is a handful of people up there,

comparatively speaking, for a vast area of land, but they have a say in

the kind of changes that are going to take place there. We want to

encourage them to participate.

It is interesting to note when you discuss the northeast area about

agriculture...it is difficult. There is potential for foraging and so

on which we have recognized through some support of a dehy plant there.

I don't know where that will go. They have had seven crop failures in

recent years; the climatic condition is not good. But there is an

argument that agricultural potential is there, and perhaps that should

be pursued. I won't anticipate what the preliminary survey report will

have to say.

I think you are quite correct that the Department of Finance, the

Department of Resources, as I call them, under the Hon. Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Department of

Recreation and Conservation — to a certain extent, Highways, and to a

considerable extent Health; Human Resources must certainly play its

role…. What you are saying is that economic development really today in

1974 is a project that concerns every department.

I don't feel in any way stripped of any power or authority in having

those Ministries actively involved, indeed leading in many respects. I

haven't got the kind of ego problem that others may have in terms of

this kind of activity. I'd like to think that we're operating as a team

— and that we have been doing. Certainly very few decisions are made…no

economic development decisions are made without my advice and I'm

delighted that I am called upon to play that kind of a role.

As far as stature is concerned — which you mentioned earlier —

someone was telling me that diamonds are very small. Dynamite comes in

small packages. (Laughter.) You can take your pick; I'm not sure. There

are many short people who I've met who I've been very, very proud to

know. Tommy Douglas is a very good person to be in company with, and

I'm just a bit taller than Tommy Douglas. You know, when you're talking

about height, I'm a little bit saddened by people, and I'm not

suggesting the Hon. Member is one of them, whose only stature is in

their height. That is a difficult thing to accept.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) quite rightly

pointed out that when I was getting carried away with myself last

Friday I said there was a capital investment jump of 103 per cent. That

would indeed have been a surprise to most everyone in Canada. What I

meant to say was 10.3 per cent. It rose 10.3 per cent to approximately

$4.1 billion.

It's significant however — the Hon. Member will, of course, recall

in his reading of the previous statistics on the matter — that the last

year of the Social Credit administration had minus 5.1 per cent growth

in capital investments. It declined on an overall percentage basis in

1972. I would agree with the Hon. Member that there are these

fluctuations which occur and do not necessarily reflect the kind of

government that's in power one way or the other.

In terms of the inflationary spiral mentioned briefly by the Hon.

Member for Columbia River, and the call on myself by the Hon. Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) as to what vision I

have, particularly where this province is going, there are a number of

important things that occur to me. One is the primary resource

extraction economy, such as the one we have, which is really at the

whim of the global market situation. We are subject to many, many

things over which we have little or no control — shipping, market

penetration, foreign exchange and so on.

It appears to me that if we are to take control over our economic

destiny there must be a shift, perhaps not as dramatic as you and I

would like but a shift nevertheless, towards a more industrial-based

economy which means added value to our primary resources, which means

developing new industries within the province. And this is not to say

that we can do this in a few months or even a few years.

I think some of the decisions that we make today will affect how

this takes place over the next several years. One of those decisions is

cooperation between the four western provinces. We have to rationalize

this tremendous problem of transportation, that horrible spaghetti that

we have in the whole western region — transportation costs,

rationalization of the use of our raw materials. It seems to me that if

the four western provinces cannot cooperate on that basis, then we have

no business cooperating on any other basis. I think we can cooperate

and I'm quite hopeful that we can.

Another decision is a trading corporation. Although I feel that a

trading corporation in the first two or three years would not have a

significant impact in the global situation, we will be able through a

trading corporation and merchant banking on an international basis to

control to some extent market

[ Page 2300 ]

penetration in the Pacific Rim — costs of shipping

and transportation over water. We would be able to rationalize the use

of raw materials from other countries. I look forward to that kind of

decision-making. As specifically what, perhaps in keeping with

regionalization or decentralizing industry…. Again I'm not saying that

this is possible or what I would consider desirable. I would consider

that some steps can be made to decentralize industry in that at least

we can encourage new industry, a certain base in technology, to locate

in various areas.

In keeping with that, in attracting new industry, specifically I say

that we must move towards the fabrication and smelting of our

non-ferrous metals. Where that is going to lead us I don't know. The

economy involved is a subtle one, in my view. We are the only

jurisdiction that is the major producer, one of the top major

producers, of copper concentrate without a copper smelter. Zambia, for

example, has a copper smelter. Again because it's 1974 and the issue of

environment is paramount in everyone's mind, not only on this side of

this House, we have to look carefully about location. But I think it's

just a question of location, not a question of whether we should. I

think that we should. I think it's the policy of this government to

develop in some way the fabrication of our non-ferrous metals here.

Those are decisions that can be made and steps can be taken to ensure

that it occurs.

Steel production is another thing. I'm not saying for a moment that

we should have primary production steel plants of the blast furnace

type that would be polluting the atmosphere. We may need one. With

modern technology I am told and I am instructed that perhaps we can

build one that's relatively clean and tolerable for the kind of

environment we're used to in British Columbia. Again location is a

decision to be made.

We may not necessarily have to go that route. We could, perhaps,

start with the tertiary steel production base which is by far the more

labour intensive and less capital intensive. Those are routes and

decisions that can be made within the next few months to steer this

province towards a more industrial base and a more stable economy and

to ensure that the people of British Columbia, not next year or the

year after, but in 10 years can say that if the world is all right

economically, we will be too.

Referring back again to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

I mentioned the kitchen cabinets, a trade mission, when you questioned

me. What do we have projected? We have several things projected. I do

not like to make specific announcements about where we're going on that.

But we had a sawmilling equipment trade mission, and we had a

kitchen cabinet thing. We're not hard pressed to find the kind of

British Columbia products that are worth selling because they're all

great products in this beautiful Province of British Columbia. Take

your pick; we'll be having a trade mission. If they're as successful as

the kitchen cabinet one and as the other one seems to be, then we

should continue them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now as far as mariculture is concerned, the

Hon. Member, I know, personally has a great interest in oysters

(Laughter) and consumes perhaps more oysters than anybody, I think, in

western Canada. (Laughter.) I hope my colleague, the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is most interested in

oysters as well. His department is carrying on surveys and studies with

respect to the production of that kind of food here in British Columbia.

Mariculture, generally speaking, is what he and I together are going

to be looking at — everything in the sea, products of the sea. I think

the Japanese are famous for versatility and ingenuity in the use of

food from the sea. The time will come around when British Columbians

should be seriously thinking on those terms. This is an initial step, a

start toward that.

I think the Hon. Member is quite correct in many of the things he

says. I have to sit here and I'm just a little bit discomforted because

the Hon. Member for Columbia River doesn't have the kind of facts or

information about steel production or coal which I've recently been

made aware of.

It is clear that in the long-term interest of British Columbia, to

process raw materials and raw resources to create a secondary industry

will be the goal that we will have to proceed along.

The steel industry offers many opportunities. It's of considerable

importance to this province in the construction of railways, bridges,

ships, barges, buildings and so on. Certainly in the last year we've

learned a great deal about steel shortages and what they can do to the

economy of British Columbia. The construction industry is perhaps the

most obvious example. Many commodities here will suffer because we

don't have a secure supply of steel and there are several ways that we

can secure that supply of steel.

I'll say no more than to say that the government is aware of the

existence of a very significant reserve of coking coal in British

Columbia of several billion tons, and this is a matter of great

importance to the world's steel producers.

This is especially so in view of the existence of facilities to

transport and load this coal. Many of the broad development plans

presently being considered by the government are geared to increasing

the capacity of the province to make these resources available to steel

producers of the world. The government regards the continuing dynamic

[ Page 2301 ]

development of the steel industry in the world as

an essential ingredient to the economic growth of British Columbia, and

therefore will seek to establish the most positive relationship with

our trading partners and suppliers.

I read that statement because I wanted to be clear about the language. We will be discussing coking coal in Japan.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I wanted to direct a few

questions to the Minister, particularly since we've got involved in

this matter of the DREE agreement between the provincial government and

the federal government which I understand, as I read it, is a general

development agreement signed on March 28 and covers a period up until

March 31, 1984, unless it is terminated by mutual agreement.

We've heard described in the House the areas that are subject to the

agreement, and they're roughly described as northwest and northeast

British Columbia and the Kootenays. Of course, one of the things that

becomes apparent as you read the agreement is the fact that this is

very general. There's nothing specific in the agreement, or definitive,

and the projects to be undertaken, while they may be known in the mind

of the Minister at the present time, or he may have priorities in mind,

are certainly not general knowledge to the Members of this House.

Further, I suppose that the Minister is not in a position to

indicate fully whether the projects will be approved or not until such

time as he enters into a subsidiary agreement with the federal

government and they have been signed by them.

But I do believe that the Minister must be aware of the fact that

until some of these specific questions are answered, the people and the

areas who will be involved in this DREE agreement are very handicapped

in planning any future work they may wish to do, or development that

they would like to attract into the area.

I'd like to know, for example, under the DREE agreement what types

of programmes the Minister envisages. Will it cover what I would

basically refer to as "people services"? For instance, will the

programme cover the capital costs of new housing developments, new

hospitals, or additions to hospitals, new recreational facilities, new

schools, transportation corridors, servicing, utility services —

particularly in new and expanding areas?

I think the Minister is well aware of the fact that the regional

district of the Peace-Liard has been a very active regional board, one

of the most active in the province. They have probably done more to get

a consensus of opinion in a very large, widespread area than any other

group in the Province of British Columbia.

I can recall in the initial meetings of that board that it was

almost impossible to get the appointed board members to sit down and

talk to one another because of very partisan thinking. That has almost

disappeared. I'd say it has disappeared now, due to the type of people

who are elected to the board and, I think, due a great deal to the

successive chairmen that they have appointed at different times, who

have worked very hard to overcome these differences. As a result of

that they have made some very concrete moves that have been beneficial

to all the Peace-Liard region.

It is no secret that they are very concerned about additional

hospital construction in the whole Peace-Liard region now. They have

put a referendum to the taxpayers, which was approved — not in the

amount they would have liked, but in a much lesser amount. So they

would be very interested in knowing, Mr. Minister, if the anticipated

additional hospital construction or any new construction that may be

required in that region will be subject to a subsidiary agreement

between yourselves and DREE, not only because of the work that it will

entail and the jobs that will be created by that, but also by the fact

that if DREE money is involved, naturally the amount that they will

have to raise locally through the regional district is much reduced, or

greatly reduced.

So they are concerned, and rightly so. But I'm not sure, Mr.

Minister, that they can wait indefinitely for an answer. What they

would also like to know is: if you cannot at this time give them a

definitive statement as to the position they are in, will any future

agreements that you enter into be retroactive to the time of signing

the agreement, which is basically March of this year? So if they do go

ahead and plan the additions they must have if they are going to

provide the people services that we require in that part of the

country, and they somehow get them off the ground, would the subsidiary

agreements, if signed, between yourself as a representative of the

Government of B.C. and the federal government be retroactive to March,

1974?

I think that if we wish to develop in a reasonable manner programmes

which would qualify under DREE, or attract industry, then we must have

some general guidelines. I'd like to know also if the Minister has a

list of priorities in mind with respect to projects and agreements that

may be consummated between yourself and the federal government. Has he

any idea of the new industries which might be encouraged to establish

themselves in the northern part of the British Columbia?

Certainly from my experience it is not an overnight proposition,

when you go to talk to the industries which may have capital that is

required to provide for expansion. Many of the projects that have been

rumoured and talked about three, four or five years ago are now just

starting to come on stream; so it is not an immediate thing. And it is

something that

[ Page 2302 ]

the people in the area, in order to be effective, particularly those in the regional district, must have some information about.

So if there is a general government policy with respect to the type

of programmes that will be potentially developed under a DREE

agreement, then I think we have a right, as Members of this House, to

know the Minister's position in that respect.

The Minister has mentioned the coal reserves in British Columbia.

Certainly they are of a great magnitude and will become of great

importance to the province as years go by. Close to our own area of the

province, in northeastern B.C., we think of the Sukunka coal

development. I wonder if the Minister has anything further to report to

the House with respect to the development of that particular mine out

in the Sukunka area.

The potential for agriculture is certainly a great one yet in

northeastern British Columbia, and I think that you will see the

general farm economy greatly improved in the next year or two,

basically because of the price of grain today. It is no secret that for

a number of years the farmers in northeastern British Columbia have had

to compete against Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the right to

sell a lot of grain — at least they had to compete with them on a price

basis. They couldn't demand any more for their grain in northeastern

British Columbia than the prairie provinces received. This put us at a

disadvantage up there from the standpoint that the inputs in

agriculture are much higher in northeastern British Columbia. You have

to invest more money. It's a developing area where development costs

are high.

With the price of grain increasing the way it has in the last year —

and the markets look good from the standpoint of exports for the next

several years — it's going to be of much greater encouragement to

farmers than ever before to effectively farm and plan that if they do

have the good fortune to pull down a good crop in any one year, they

will be reimbursed in a manner that will at least return to them all

their investment costs and perhaps a little bit of profit besides.

I think that picture is beginning to brighten up, Mr. Minister.

That's why I think we should encourage people in the agricultural

industry at this particular time, because we have been told for years

that there would be a shortage of food products throughout the world.

It's happening far faster than any of us really anticipated it would

happen.

One major crop failure in western Canada or the United States could

put us into a very precarious position with respect to not only our

export contracts but with respect to many hundreds of thousands of

people, perhaps millions, who depend upon the grain we grow for their

livelihood. We're entering that phase much quicker than some people

anticipated.

I do want the Minister to comment to whatever extent he feels he can

at this particular time on the overall impact. The Peace River-Liard

Regional District have done a great deal of planning. They're very

energetic and they're very concerned about the projects they would like

to see developed both now and in the next year or two. They're

particularly concerned right now about hospital services and whether a

capital programme will be included in any subsidiary agreement with the

DREE organization sponsored by the federal government. Perhaps the

Minister could comment on those particular points.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to deal with one or two

specifics and also talk in general terms about the balance this

province will have to set in its planning to achieve two goals:

industrial development compatible with the standards of environmental

protection which the people of this province are very keen to preserve.

First of all, I'd like to ask the Minister about one particular

situation I have here with a local firm back in the summer of 1972.

That was quite a summer as the Minister remembers. The firm was given

authority by the Crown corporation in Indonesia to seek contracts for

at least four tankers and quite likely four others. This was backed by

a major investment group with lots of dollars which gave this local

agent authority to start negotiations with shipyards to build four

tankers. I understand that under the federal subsidy with the initials

STAP there would be a 17 per cent subsidy from the federal government.

We hear so much about industrial expansion in British Columbia and

unemployment and skilled workers looking for jobs. Here this company

sought bids from Japan, Norway, Holland, West Germany, and they went

from every shipyard from Halifax to British Columbia. What do they

discover? They discover that every shipyard in eastern Canada has

contracts up to around 1978-79. At that time, this agent went to the

B.C. shipyards which were engaged in what the agent tells me were

small-time, short-term contracts and found they were really waiting for

the B.C. Ferries contracts.

Understand that this agent, who had the authority to award the bid,

provided facts, figures, names and plans to the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. If British Columbia had

been awarded this contract, there would have been continuous full-time

employment in the shipyards for something on the order of four to five

years. In fact, the work force might have had to be supplemented by

trainees from BCIT. Perhaps the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) would have been interested to know that on-the-job training

could have been provided for the vocational institutes.

One of the snags was that some extended ways

[ Page 2303 ]

would have had to be built in the shipyards,

costing around $3 million. But the long-term investment and the

potential to attract contracts for ship building from many parts of the

world for many years ahead was a very obvious and attractive

possibility. One suggestion put forward for the extension of the ways

would be that it could be done by the provincial government and leased

to shipbuilders then and in the future. The interesting thing is that

this agent hasn't yet had a reply from the Department of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce.

To finish the story, the four ships are being built in Japan. The

first one was just launched last week. I well remember the Premier in

one of his arm-waving moments in this House on a debate on unemployment

using the usual political device of passing the buck to the federal

government when he talked about the fact that the former administration

had not utilized the federal subsidies available for ship building.

When he was defending the government's position on the unemployment

issue, he talked about the tremendous potential for ship building in

this province and that we should cooperate with the federal government

to create a Canadian federal marine service.

I would just like to ask the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce if it's no longer the policy of this government to

utilize shipyard facilities. Are we going to consider enlarging them?

It seems from the ever-increasing volume of world trade that cargo

ships and tankers will be in ever-increasing demand. As I say, the

shipyards in eastern Canada have work to keep them going for four or

five years.

One of the more ironic aspects of the point I'm raising is that I

understand in recent months the Minister sent a trade mission to

Indonesia looking for work, looking to see if we could sell Canadian

expertise and B.C. products. Here we had the potential to have been

building four tankers and providing jobs for four or five years. But

no. Apparently not only did the department reject the offer but the

agent who was trying to get the contract for B.C. workers hasn't even

had a reply in writing from the department on the approach.

The agent mentioned to me that, in building ships on the west coast,

it's not even unreasonable to import the steel from other countries

because of the tremendous differential in freight rates to transport

the steel from eastern Canada to British Columbia. From Sault Ste.

Marie to Montreal it's about $13 a ton and from Sault Ste. Marie to

British Columbia it's $23 a ton — or figures in that range which he

quoted.

I thought the settlement at this recent energy conference in Ottawa

where the western provinces tried to establish their identity was to be

some kind of sawoff. Western oil would be readily available to eastern

Canada provided eastern Canada stopped its attitude towards the freight

rates on goods being transported to British Columbia. Can the Minister

tell us: has the department any commitment as to an improvement of the

freight rate situation from the federal government? If so, by what

date? What kind of percentage improvement are we talking about?

There's been a great deal of discussion about the viability or

otherwise of a steel mill in British Columbia. It's obviously a very

complicated matter; I don't think any one of us in this House should be

unaware of all the complicated pros and cons involved. But time and

time again, from experts and from people with a great deal of

experience, I understand that eastern Canada has purposely maintained a

system of differential freight rates which makes it very difficult for

products to be manufactured here and transported east or for the cost

of steel to be transported from the east to British Columbia.

I wonder first of all if the Minister could give us some information

about this tanker bid that was, for whatever reasons, not accepted. I

would like to know in particular if the tanker bid was not entertained

even in part because the decision was made to keep the yards available

for building the B.C. ferries.

Secondly, I would like to know if there are any plans or any

consultations going on with the ship-building firms in British Columbia

to provide or expand the necessary facilities. I certainly get the

impression from talking to this very experienced marine consultant that

this is just the first situation of many whereby there will be other

such contracts going a-begging, particularly in the next few years.

He felt quite confident that if we had been able to build the first

four ships this time around, there was a real possibility that if the

contracts were well-met and the workmanship and the deadlines were met,

it would be quite likely the yards in British Columbia would have got

the second bunch of four ships.

We often talk in this House in general terms that we must expand our

capacity in this respect or another, and we must use all our skilled

people and so on. This makes a lot of sense, but here is a clear,

specific example where apparently we turned away from British Columbia

a tremendous contract in building ships. I wonder if the Minister would

just tell us if this trade mission that went to Indonesia had ship

building as one of the items on the agenda.

One of the subjects which hasn't been mentioned to any great degree

in this debate so far is the whole question of port development. I know

that the federal and provincial governments have come to some agreement

in the development of Prince Rupert and the necessary railway changes

and extensions that will have to be built. But the Minister has not

been very specific in grasping what is a very obvious major problem in

British Columbia. He has not given the House any kind of master plan

which ties in railway and road access to the major port in the lower

[ Page 2304 ]

mainland, nor has he said to what degree Vancouver

will ultimately become unable to cope with the demands and that there

should be another major port facility created to meet the demand of the

super cargo ships.

The Minister has made it plain that the success of the producer

depends on the efficiency of the port in a large measure. The quicker

the turn around, the more effective the port and the benefits to

everyone in the economy.

I know that Vancouver harbour has had its controversies over the

years — even the years that I have lived in British Columbia. There

have been a lot of conflicting statements by federal politicians like

Jack Davis and Paul Hellyer back in 1968. And there have been various

study committees, I understand, but each time there seems to be no

long-term vision; there is no appreciation of the vital nature of

developing a modern superport.

In 1973, Mr. Chairman, Vancouver harbour increased its tonnage

handled by 15 per cent — it went from 36.7 million tons to 44 million

tons. Somewhere along the line it was announced, and I would like the

Minister to confirm or refute this, that there was to be a $20 million

general cargo terminal built on the North Shore in 1975. This was

announced by the port manager in July of last year.

The point I am trying to get at is that Vancouver harbour has some

very definite limitations in the light of modern transportation trends

with extremely large ships, the danger of collisions and oil-spills and

so on. I understand that the maximum entrance depth in Vancouver

harbour is 50 feet which limits ships to the size of around 80,000

tons, and the drydock capacity is limited. There is one single channel

of entry and a considerable risk of collision. We had a recent

collision, as we all remember, of two ships within the inlet on a

bright, moonlight night when there should have been no communication

problems. The harbour is surrounded on both sides by mainly residential

and business districts with little room for industrial expansion. The

road and rail access is limited and congested which will only get worse

as the demands on the harbour for more ships and bigger ships progress.

Of course, we have the whole business of a third crossing to the North

Shore to keep in mind.

Therefore, we have a harbour increasing its turnover by a

substantial amount — 15 per cent a year — with some very distinct

limitations. As I say, it certainly can't handle the super cargo ships

that the Japanese yards are building.

I think there really must be some kind of statement by the Minister

as to what the integrated long-term planning is for a modern, adequate

port on the lower mainland. I don't think we have had that outline. I

know the Minister has talked about it at different times in part, but

of course just creating a harbour isn't the only challenge. There is

the problem, which the Minister touched on Friday, of agricultural land

which will, of necessity, have to be part of the package put together

to provide the harbour and the associated industrial facilities.

While I don't agree with the way the Minister has handled the

Tilbury Island situation, I think we should make it very plain, Mr.

Chairman, that this large, modern port is an absolute must in the

future successful industrial planning for British Columbia. As the

Minister himself has said, there is a shortage of industrial land. Some

of it in the areas that we are discussing will have to encompass what

has been recently regarded as agricultural land.

The Minister is on record as saying that people will have to realize

that despite Bill 42 and the land freeze, it was not designed to

preserve all farmland. In a quote from The Vancouver Sun

of February 14, the Minister is reported as having said in referring to

environmentalists, particularly the Sierra Club who were disturbed

about the conversion of farmland to industrial use:

"These people have to realize that the Land Commission Act

was not intended to preserve every square inch of farmland in

perpetuity but was designed to stem the tremendous tide of development."

This may well be so, but it certainly is unfortunate that where the

government in its land-use policies has been, I think, very severe and

very stern regarding the land use by individuals — and there has been a

rather tedious attempt to have non-agricultural land which was wrongly

frozen taken out of the land reserve — it is rather unfortunate that

the government to suit itself appears to be able to act differently in

its own interests than it does in the interests of individual citizens.

Regardless of the Minister's justification for acquiring that site,

it is certainly disturbing that there appears to have been little or no

consultation, as to the environmental impact, between the Minister and

the people concerned.

The environmental council, on March 21, is quoted as saying that

they met with the Land Commission and were astonished to discover that

the Land Commission had not even been contacted by Mr. Lauk on any

aspect of the development. It was clear that the Land Commission, given

a mandate to bring about rational development of land use in the

province, had been kept in the dark by Mr. Lauk, and the Department of

Agriculture had been overruled at the cabinet level by industrial

interests over the prime use of agricultural land on Tilbury and

Crescent Islands.

As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, it may well be that the government

has to use some agricultural land because of its specific location in

relation to the need for a port and an industrial site. I hope that the

[ Page 2305 ]

Minister can probably make that quite clear to all

and sundry, because the question and the need for a large, modern port

will only grow as each year goes by.

Of course, in relationship to that, the question is: does the

Minister intend to use Roberts Bank as the site for the expansion of

the existing port facilities there to become the superport for British

Columbia?

There again, as I said, we need some kind of master plan, because I

am sure the people of B.C. want to be a part of the plan. They have

made it very plain — not just environmentalists but ordinary citizens —

that they want some attempt to preserve greenbelts to have some open

space and recreational facilities and that whatever residential

community is built should be given top priority in the planning. Not

the least of that is that road and rail access to the port and the

industrial facility would be rapid transit.

As part of this planning, can the Minister tell us whether, in fact,

in the long haul there will be phasing out of Vancouver harbour?

Presumably if the superport is to be built, let us say at Roberts Bank,

then the whole question of the third crossing of Burrard Inlet takes on

a different complexion if, in fact, the greater use of Vancouver

harbour as a port would be phased out over the next 15 or 20 years or

whatever. Perhaps the Minister could tell us to what degree he has

plans of this nature in mind.

This all costs money. I would like to know to what degree the

Minister has discussed this port development with the federal

government. I looked up the figures and the federal government put $300

million into the St. Lawrence Seaway. That money was put in to provide

facilities for less than the annual tonnage that goes through Vancouver

harbour. In 1974 dollars, that's about equivalent to about $700 million.

It would seem to me that since the west coast, and particularly this

port facility in British Columbia, is to be so vital an outlet for our

resources, surely we should get a very sympathetic ear from the federal

government. Could the Minister tell us to what degree he has asked for

money from the federal government and where the negotiations are at the

present time?

It would seem also, Mr. Chairman, that if Vancouver harbour could be

phased out in the long run there would certainly be some waterfront

lands which could be used for relatively high-density housing such as

being planned at False Creek. So I think the two — the proposed new

super harbour and the existing Vancouver harbour — have to be seen in

combination. While one is created and expanded to meet modern needs the

existing Vancouver harbour can be reduced in its capacity and its use.

[Mr. Gorst in the chair.]

In trying to get this point across, Mr. Chairman, I have an

interesting quote from the executive vice-president of Canadian

Importers Association, Mr. Keith Dickson. He said: "At present it is

nearly as quick and certainly as competitive in price to ship from

Japan to Toronto or Montreal via New York rather than Vancouver." It

would seem to me that if that is correct — and he's the vice-president

of the Canadian Importers Association and I would assume that he really

knows what he's talking about — it seems that there's some real

bottleneck or inefficiency or perhaps simply inadequacy of the

facilities in the harbour of Vancouver to permit him to make such a

statement.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, in another respect I notice that there

seems little doubt that Seattle, by forging ahead with efficient cranes

and container facilities, is certainly taking a great deal of the ships

into Seattle harbour compared to Vancouver. Perhaps it is reasonable to

say that if Vancouver harbour is strained to its capacity and is

inefficient, not only is it reasonable that these shipping authorities

should use Seattle but it would make the situation only more difficult

if they were to come to Vancouver.

There was a very interesting

article back in the Sun in

November which made it quite clear that the port of Seattle is outdoing

the port of Vancouver. So once again I wonder if the Minister would

care to comment on his plans for the existing harbour and the

potentially new harbour of the extension of Roberts Bank.

Related to the port facility, I wonder if the Minister could tell us

what plans there are to correct the problem in the Fraser Canyon. I

understand that in the region of Boston Bar some geologists have some

concern about a particular mountain where there is a potential danger

for a slide. The federal government, I understand, is aware of this.

The fact is that if some slide blocks the Fraser Canyon for any

considerable length of time, then of course we have a very serious

transportation problem. I understand that the demands on that

particular railroad, which is almost 100 years old, are tremendous and

are continuing to increase in amount, what with weather and the danger

of slides.

What plans are there to provide alternative routes? I understand

that the Minister has been considering two or three alternatives. To

bypass it is one alternative the Minister points out. Well, perhaps

when I sit down the Minister can tell us what the alternative is and

how soon we can anticipate it being created. It's obvious that if the

new superport is created there isn't much point in it unless we have a

very efficient rail and road access system to the port. Certainly the

Fraser Canyon plays a very large

part in the planning for the future of

that.

Also, in talking about the Vancouver harbour, I read an interesting

quote from Maxwell Henderson. Everybody remembers who Maxwell Henderson

is — he's the retired Auditor-General.

[ Page 2306 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't Maxwell the guy with the little hammer?

MR. WALLACE: He said that for the last two years his office

was unable to certify the accounts of the National Harbours Board.

That's the quote — "unable to certify." I get the impression from what

he said that he couldn't make head nor tail of their figures. But he

certainly couldn't sign any kind of approval or certification as to the

accounts. I wonder if the Minister's aware of this and to what degree

he would be concerned that something as important as the National

Harbours Board can't produce a satisfactory balance sheet to keep the

Auditor-General happy.

I just would like to say a few words on this question of the steel

mill. I heard a very interesting broadcast on CBC on March 26 by Mr.

Southworth, who stated that the main purpose of the Premier's visit to

Japan, together with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce was threefold: (1) a steel mill, (2) a petrochemical complex,

and (3) a car-assembly plant. I must say that I had heard of the first

and third, but this was the first time I had heard of any large scale

petrochemical complex, which again will require a very substantial

amount of industrial land, not to mention the associated pollution.

In this respect, as in the Tilbury Island situation and as in the

development in northeastern B.C., I think the people of British

Columbia are wondering just how much becomes a fait accompli before the

government decides to tell the people.

You know, Mr. Chairman, if you're not too busy reading the rule book….

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's okay, Scotty. I just thought I'd might be able to help you out.

MR. WALLACE: You just might.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I should tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Roy is awake again. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're in trouble.

MR. WALLACE: One of the very strong principles on which the

present government was elected was that it would get rid of all the

secrecy and inside dealing of the former administration and it would be

an open government. There's no question that in many respects this

government is more open than the former. But when we're talking about

industrial development and its intimate effect on the environment, on

land use, where people live, how they get to work, how they get home

from work, the whole question of recreational facilities, greenbelts,

and on and on, we've already heard in this debate of two or three or

more very large industrial projects where the information is coming out

to the public in a drip, drip, drip fashion.

Today I received a telegram with 38 signatures from a complete

cross-section of occupations in Smithers. I don't intend to read out

all of the names but they are: radio operator; housewife; another

housewife; carpenter; prospector; mining engineer, and so on it goes.

There are 38 signatures of people who are expressing their concern over

the proposed Smithers "supermill," they call it. Now I don't know the

details and I don't propose to pretend that I do. But I do know, Mr.

Chairman, that in an ever-increasing well of public concern, people in

this province are asking this government to consult with the people in

the area who will be most affected by massive industrial change.

We've heard that the northeastern development plan will create

25,000 jobs. When you add the families and other people associated with

the actual worker, we're talking about 75,000 people. As the Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith) pointed out, people mean services and

facilities, homes, hospitals, schools — not to mention the actual

impact on the physical development of the countryside and the

preservation of the environment.

When The Vancouver Sun on December 17 obtained some

information as to the scope of the proposed development, the Premier

quickly retorted "No, there won't be five hydro dams." But the Premier

was very careful not to say what there would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him what to say.

MR. WALLACE: Now when you move 75,000 people into a new area

the question of industrial expansion, whether it's northeast or

northwest, of the scope that's been discussed, must surely involve,

above all other elements, the need for power. I think it's very

reasonable of the people in the northeast and the northwest to be

apprehensive about how much planning is going beyond the planning stage

to commitment, as for example in provincial-federal arrangements for

financing — and this has already happened — and in terms of railway

agreements with the federal government.

All I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that there's real

apprehension by many people in British Columbia. We've quoted several

examples in the Tilbury Island area and northeast and northwest B.C.

where there appears to be very far-reaching industrial planning by this

government, with minimal consultation with the people in that area who

will be most intimately affected by the planning.

[ Page 2307 ]

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I hate to disturb the caucus, but….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You haven't been to those public meetings.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm not always stumped. There's a whole

sheaf of questions if you want me to read them out. I wasn't going to

take a lot of time….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the meetings I'm talking about, Mr. Premier,

through you, Mr. Chairman, are the meetings that he promised when he

ran for election in 1972 between the government and the people of

British Columbia before any big planning would be done. Those are the

meetings I'm talking about.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we're not aware of the meetings you're

talking about. You haven't asked me to appear. I've had no

communication whatever in my office.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: You mean that I have to get all my invitations from the government through the newspapers? (Laughter.)

Anyway, Mr. Chairman…

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: …it's rather obvious that we've touched a nerve, that's for sure. He doth protest too much, the Premier, I think.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Regardless of that little interplay, and

regardless of whether the Premier thinks I should get the invitation

from the newspaper, let me say that it's becoming loud and clear when I

do read the newspaper that more and more people want to know more

specifically what the plans of government are, and they want to be an

integral

part in the planning. I really feel that that's nothing less

than the duty of any modern government, and it is certainly the kind of

commitment which this party made when it sought election in 1972.

One of the criticisms that was frequently voiced about the former

administration was that it was insensitive to the ordinary daily needs

and aspirations of people, and that in fact all it could see was dollar

bills and pulp mills and money and material wealth to the disregard of

the environment and the cultural and other aspects of the life of each

of us.

There was a great deal of optimism when this government was elected

that there would be a new era. The hon. preacher from Dewdney says

"Hear, hear." Well, I hope in the same way that the Hon. Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) is interested in people in one specific sense in

his calling, he'll also tell his own government, his own party, that he

thinks, in some of these very grandiose and extensive industrial plans

for the various areas of this province, that before you go beyond a

certain point of no return, maybe it would be only a matter of meeting

your election promises to make sure that you consult with the people

who are in these areas.

The people in Smithers have submitted information in which, as far as they've

been able to gather, the planning encompasses an area of 100,000 square miles.

The B.C. government is providing scant information to the citizens of the area

in way of specific proposals. The plan will include a road-construction programme

of approximately $500 million.

I think we should maybe state some of these figures. This will give

the Minister the opportunity to tell me they're wrong, or if they're

correct, maybe to give some details to the people in that region so

that they can understand what's about to happen in the next few years.

A railway port development of approximately $325 million — instant

towns. They ask a very legitimate question: "where will the new people

for these jobs come from?" In the past instant towns have proved to be

social disasters. They mention some of the new towns that are to be

created: Ootsa, Takla, Groundhog, Dease Lake. They fear that these

towns will fare little better than their instant predecessors.

There's the whole question of the supermills to supply chips to

replace the whole logs that have been used uneconomically at the

present time. Their information is that 12 new mills are planned for

Burns Lake, Houston, Hazelton, Smithers and Terrace.

The B.C. Forest Service has advertised for a mill to use 180,000

cunits per year for the Burns Lake district and it goes on and on and

on. But the heart of the matter is that these people are having their

whole future and the area in which they live radically changed by

industrial planning, and they feel very much as though they have little

or no say in the matter. Maybe the Minister can tell us whether that's

a valid fear and, if it is a valid fear, what he's going to do about it.

I got sidetracked somewhere when the Premier got

[ Page 2308 ]

after me. I think I was talking about the steel mill when the

Premier came in. Again, there are so many elements of the future of

British Columbia involved in planning a steel mill. The Minister stated

some of these earlier on. I want to know whether he has in fact made a

decision as to whether a steel mill is viable, by whatever method.

He gave the clear impression that we might not go to the

conventional system of blast furnaces, but the implication was left

that it might be viable to use the direct reduction method, which I

understand means that you don't need to have a market for such a large

amount of steel.

I did read recently that one of the experts in the steel business —

and perhaps we couldn't call him completely unbiased since he

represents Algoma Steel — said that the industry calculation is that 1

million tons of plant capacity is the bare minimum to justify the basic

oxygen steel-making plant. He doesn't even agree with that; he says

it's closer to 2 million tons to make it viable. But the direct

reduction method permits economic output at levels below 1 million

tons. The fact of the matter is that he finished up with what was very

pertinent, or what I thought sounded very realistic.

Whatever way you approach it, the key is the market. You have to

turn your steel into shapes people will buy; you have to have a big and

growing plant to achieve the economies of scale that are your only

defence against cost increases. The market is not here in British

Columbia and the export scene is too unpredictable.

I think we can be fair and say this is a competitor who is speaking,

Mr. Holbrook, who is the president and chairman of the Algoma Steel

Corporation. He made these statements on a visit to British Columbia

last October. I suppose we can look at the statement with some

hesitation; maybe doubt. As the Minister interjects, he's probably

worried about the future of his own company.

But nevertheless, we are dealing with enormous sums of money at

stake in a steel plant; we have the natural concern of citizens about

pollution and the unattractive aspects of a steel plant. The Minister,

before he goes to Japan, should give us a much clearer statement of

just where British Columbia is at the present time in its decision or

lack of decision to build a steel mill.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made plain earlier this

afternoon the initiative which Saskatchewan has taken in conjunction

with the federal government. I found this a little disappointing

because just quite recently the Minister had stated there was a new era

of cooperation among the western provinces to try and have an

integrated degree of planning of their industrial and economic future.

Now we're going to have a new one in Saskatchewan, and I noticed also,

in another statement here by Stelco last November, that they will start

work next year on a new integrated steel plant near Port Dover,

Ontario. It will provide 1.3 million tons a year of capacity by the

time it's completely developed.

It's obvious the existing steel plants in the east are expanding. We

have Saskatchewan taking an initiative with federal government help. I

just wonder whether the Minister is in a position now to tell us much

more definitely than has been done up to this point how seriously B.C.

is interested in a steel plant and to what degree these kinds of

decisions I've mentioned — the expansion decisions of Algoma and Stelco

together with the announcement by Saskatchewan — further reduce the

viability of a steel mill being built in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that's probably a fair question. The

Minister could perhaps tell us if the government feels they've been too

late in reaching the point of decision. It is very clear there is

increasing capacity for steel production in eastern Canada and, as I

stated, later in Saskatchewan.

Could I ask the Minister whether he was informed recently by

Saskatchewan that they had decided to this degree to go it alone with

steel mill construction? A big headline here: "West Takes Another Step

Towards United Front." The Province of March 19, 1974, first paragraph:

"The four western provinces showed another front of

solidarity on Monday, this time with a decision to seek ways to develop

a joint industrial strategy."

Having read that and then having heard the Saskatchewan

announcement, I wonder to what degree the whole question of steel was

discussed among the industrial Ministers of the four provinces. The

Minister is quoted as saying:

"We want to put together a basic picture of what we

have and from there we hope to develop an industry strategy which we

can diversify. This could lead, for instance, to such mechanisms as a

trade corporation or a joint permanent planning committee to phase

large construction projects."

Whatever discussions had taken place involving the four western

provinces, it looks to me as though steel wasn't given the scope of

discussion or Saskatchewan chose not to reveal the degree to which they

were committed to putting in their own steel mill.

The last point that I wanted to make was this question of processing

our primary resources. Again, it was a very basic plank of the NDP

election platform in 1972. I can well remember many speeches of the

Premier when he was on this side of the House and was Leader of the

Opposition. How

[ Page 2309 ]

absolutely wrong it was for this province to ship out primary

resources, ores and the like, and to re-import the finished product

from Japan and other countries. In the area of industrial affairs this

is very much a motherhood issue: everybody is in favour of it but

nobody does much about it.

There again, the action that would need to be taken inevitably would

involve some measure of pollution, industrialization, perhaps the

inevitable use of some agricultural land for the appropriate sites to

develop smelters or other plants. Here again, the government since

election has remained very vague about it, simply supporting the

principle but not coming forward with too much in the way of specific

planning.

Just in recent days I heard one of the federal Ministers in Ottawa

saying exactly the same thing: Canada's evolution had reached the point

where there had to be greater emphasis on the processing of our primary

resources. At the moment we were little more than hewers of wood and

drawers of water. We exported the materials and let the other countries

process and manufacture the secondary and tertiary products. This CBC

broadcast I heard by Mr. Southworth the other day mentioned a car

assembly plant.

HON. MR. LAUK: What's his first name?

MR. WALLACE: Sorry, I didn't catch his first name but the

name was Southworth. I made a note of it because it seemed to me he was

making some pretty specific statements regarding steel mill,

petrochemical complex and car-assembly plant. These were the three

items that really stuck in my mind.

HON. MR. LAUK: What does he do?

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry, I don't know what he does. He might

even be a commentator on public affairs; I'm not sure that he's an

industrialist or an expert on industrial development.

The question of processing our resources was a little like a pledge

to open government: it was one of the very basic ingredients of the

election platform of this government. It again was one of the powerful,

persuasive planks in the platform which helped elect this government.

While I pointed out in the budget speech that there were some very

sad differences between the government's promises and their performance

in relation to education and health, I would say this also in this

department on two basic ideas: namely, open government and consultation

with the people and, secondly, complete failure to reveal even the

preliminary planning as to how we are to proceed with the processing of

our resources and create more jobs by encouraging processing and

secondary industry.

I wonder if the Minister has some specific plans. Can he tell us

even by phases what is intended? Is it just simply that after 18 months

we still have nothing specific in the planning stage on paper that he

can tell us about? I hope the Minister answers some of these questions.

HON. MR. LAUK: First of all, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) will probably be back shortly.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised several points and I'll

answer them as precisely but as briefly as I can. With respect to the

four tankers from the Crown corporation in Indonesia: recently another

foreign country, as a matter of fact, dropped in to see us and was

inquiring about five freighters and three tankers. These inquiries from

foreign countries for ship building in this province are not unusual.

I'm instructed that the existing yards will be occupied and busy until

Presumably the Hon. Member is referring to what expanded

ship-building business we can do and not to utilizing the existing

facilities, because we cannot possibly handle the business we are

getting now. I think that an approach to expansion of these facilities

is imminent.

The federal government, with advice from the Province of British

Columbia, is quickly drafting a major new policy on assisting all ocean

industries. I repeat for the benefit of the middle gallery again — are

you listening? The federal government, with the advice of the Province

of British Columbia, is quickly drafting a major new policy on

assistance to all ocean industries. They anticipate that the new policy

will benefit British Columbia greatly.

MR. WALLACE: When?

HON. MR. LAUK: Soon. So far as the details are concerned, British Columbia will plunge into this programme with our own development funds.

I expect, Mr. Member, that the next 15 to 20 years will be a period

of major expansion in terms of ship building in British Columbia.

There is another point that I think should be raised. Soon the

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

will be announcing a transportation study of a major nature that will

hopefully take into consideration your suggestion to plan for

development in the Province of British Columbia.

As far as port development is concerned, I more than anyone else, I

think, am most upset and frustrated at the kind of lack of coordination

and communication between the various harbour

[ Page 2310 ]

authorities and National Harbours Board. The Minister of Transport

and Communications a little while ago called for a western regional

harbours board, and I thoroughly support that. It is the only way to

go. Those are some of the things that you mentioned.

You also talked about freight rates, and they are highly

complicated. They involve a number of factors. We argue one thing for

the Prairies and ourselves in relation to what advantages we may have

over and above the Prairies. And we do. We have several advantages.

They've got from their point of view grain shipments through the

Crowsnest Past agreement…Pass agreement — "Past" is a slip of the

tongue which was probably my hope rather than a reality — but it causes

a situation where we can realistically say that as British Columbians

we have been subsidizing the Prairies. To some extent they've been

subsidizing us on the shipment of steel, up until recently.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's a question you would have to ask of the

Ministers that were there. But in terms of freight rates we are

constantly in discussion with the federal government and with the other

provinces. It is not an easy thing, and the solution is not easy to

come by. Tariffs are a very important aspect that relate to the point

that you were making. Again, we are participating fully on a

week-to-week, day-to-day basis, with the Department of Industry and

Trade in Ottawa with respect to the new GATT round of negotiations.

You were talking about a slide area in the canyon. I'm instructed

that the CN has a major upgrading programme on stream. The CP has a

twin track programme all the way from Calgary to Vancouver starting up

soon. The major alternative, of course, is the Ashcroft-Clinton run,

which is hopefully going to be on stream soon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, we just signed the agreement in principle, you know.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: The only tie that Member's seen is around his neck.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's as vicious as I get, Mr. Member.

You asked about public hearings. Well, there are public hearings

that are going on right now with respect to site 1 in the northeast of

the province. You should pop up there in one of those helicopters and

have a look.

On the northwest, a point should be made. There were decisions that

were made some years ago that have locked all of us as British

Columbians into particular directions in the northwest. It's not a

question of whether the Fort St. John-Dease Lake line will be built.

It's built, and through some of the best and most beautiful country in

the world. It's not a question of whether there's going to be Eurocan

and how do we save it, or Colcel and how do we turn that around.

They're there. That's the nub of the economy of the northwest.

As I said earlier in answering to the Hon. Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot), impact studies are now being undertaken by the

secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee and we hope to

see the results of those soon.

You mentioned Holbrook of Algoma Steel. I should say that he says

that it's completely economically unviable to have any kind of steel

production west of Sault Ste. Marie, and I'll tell you why. For years

the people of western Canada, and in particular of British Columbia,

have been paying through the nose the highest possible prices for

steel. We've been paying through the nose by being only the hewers of

wood and drawers of water while they've been manufacturing the nuts and

bolts in central Canada. Certainly it's been a cosy position for the

central-Canadian steel producers for many years, and now the tide is

turning. So I imagine this is one of his first trips out west and he'll

be making many more and trying to dig up a bit more feeling against

steel production out here. I wouldn't, with respect, take that as

seriously as others might.

As far as added value to resources is concerned, I suppose we could

discuss a number of specifics. I'm not sure that a definitive overall

government programme to add value to resources means anything. What

happens is that there are various things that governments can do with

the cooperation of the various primary industries of the province.

Copper smelting and fabricating must be carried on with a thorough

dialogue between that industry and government and what assistance can

come through there. The dialogue hasn't been good and I haven't been

satisfied, but we are still making every attempt to make sure the

dialogue continues to some sort of fruition.

Plywood is an added value item, by the way. There's a major

programme now that used to be done in the back door of the previous

administration and now is done up front. It is called the Canadian

Overseas Marketing Development Programme. We are in discussion with the

plywood manufacturers in this province, discussing ways and means to

increase our product sales in Japan and in Europe. The success has

[ Page 2311 ]

been great. From there it is to something else. It's a gradual type

of thing because we have to find not only skilled labour, but build up

the expertise and the practice and the markets as well. It takes time.

It takes convincing. It takes a marketing programme, and that we are

involved in. Those are the two areas.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

isn't in his seat, but I can state a few of the survey plans that are

also relevant to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace'

s) questions that are agreed to as a joint funding of these surveys

between the federal and provincial government.

There is the completion of the Kootenay task force studies, which

have been continuing over the past several months in specific sectors,

both industry and geographic. The northeast task force studies will

also be jointly funded and this is a retroactive question. They also

will include whatever new studies are going to be required by

discussion.

There will be higher value added resource sector studies. The

details and terms of these haven't been worked out specifically and I

won't mention the areas until they have been.

There are other surveys and task forces that I wish to announce in

due course. Those are the surveys that have been currently agreed to. I

expect that there may be a provincial total cost of the kind of

economic studies that I'm talking about somewhere over $1.5 million.

They will be extensive and I hope they won't take any longer than is

necessary.

The Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) asked a couple of questions

about the general development agreement. I'm not saying they will be

but they can include the kind of people services that he was talking

about. I don't expect that we'll be getting involved with DREE money in

housing programmes, but I do expect that we'll be getting involved in

discussions with those people in that area. We haven't excluded

recreational facilities and transportation facilities. Other

infrastructures that may be required here I don't know.

As far as the dollars are concerned, it's not very much. I'm not

impressed with the figure — it's about $150 million over the next five

years from the federal government's side, not including what our share

is or could be. I can tell you that the total profits are $150 million

over five years.

I agree with the Member for North Peace River that the regional district up

there is a good one that communicates well, provides a great deal of information

quickly and seems to give solid information; and they seem to be working well

together.

We are talking about the regional level of politicians; I'm not sure about

the provincial level of politics. It seems to be in doubt on occasion, but you

will have to work that out. I'm nervous about the Tories up there, but as you

say, the regional and municipal political situation is very stable.

MR. WALLACE: Could you explain that a little bit?

HON. MR. LAUK: To answer you shortly on whether the DREE will

be retroactive in terms of projects: no, it will not be. That doesn't

mean to say that a business that is now there will not be supported by

some kind of funding if they fit in with the project that is jointly

agreed upon; but it will not be a retroactive funding. I think that's

clear, but you may have been asking in terms of what was already

existing — like a particular kind of plant or manufacturing or

whatever. They will be eligible for what support there will be

available.

I am not saying they will be, because we have to devise the projects

which, in our view, will be necessary to increase economic development

in your region.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, I can only see one, the Hon. Member from Vancouver–Point Grey here.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): You fellows will get your turn.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't been dominating the floor. I think that I

ought to have an opportunity to say something about industrial

development. After all, this is the vote where we talk about it; it

isn't the vote where you do anything.

The only Minister who doesn't have any action in Industrial

Development is the Minister of Industrial Development himself. Why, the

Minister of Transport (Hun. Mr. Strachan) has got an insurance company

going, and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich): he's got a

chicken farm and a feed plant. The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon.

R.A. Williams) has got planing mills, newsprint plants, pulp mills —

heaven knows what he'll have after another year; the Premier has got

his railroad. I suppose if there are going to be any mines at all in

British Columbia, they'll have to be the Minister of Mines' mines. But

when we get to Industrial Development — that is, the Minister of

Industrial Development — there is no action at all.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier referred to the former Minister of Industrial Development:

"Waldo Skillings is a rubber duck!" Was it the Attorney-General? Well,

I'm not sure but what they didn't have their governments mixed up, because I

think this Minister of Industrial Development must be the water boy to the cabinet,

bringing the bucket and towels to the other Ministers. They are the ones who

have the action.

[ Page 2312 ]

This Minister of Industrial Development, we heard him for a while

today; I think that he was trying to put the opposition to sleep so

that he would be able to have his vote pass. But we had a lot on

studies, practically nothing on action. I don't know why it is, Mr.

Chairman, that government after government refuses to take the

portfolio of Industrial Development seriously. I think they should take

it seriously enough to appoint a Minister, somebody….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes, that's the trouble. I think there should be

somebody in long pants in that portfolio. I think we should have

action, and it looks to me like we are not going to get very much from

this Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What time did your plane arrive?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is rushing to the

Minister's defence with his three-second attention span and his usual

tape-recorded message for the Liberals.

Mr. Chairman, what we want is some action. You're the boss. We know

you're going to have a wonderful trip to Japan with the Minister of

Industrial Development and we hope when you come back you'll bring some

good news.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So superior to the rest of the Members of this House. You're so superior.

MR. McGEER: Very, very nice to have you here, Mr. Premier.

And that campaigning in Nova Scotia didn't go too well, did it? Maybe

you should have come back to B.C. Maybe you would have done a little

better.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Send him back. The Liberals will win another eight seats.

MR. McGEER: I certainly hope you'll give that rugby team better help than you gave the socialists in Nova Scotia.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier will have an opportunity

to get up and tell us whether or not there are any important industrial

development plans for British Columbia. We have been waiting for them

under the Minister's vote and we haven't had very much so far.

Certainly we hope that what comes out of that trip to Japan…. We are

adjourning the House for the purpose of this visit to Japan by the Premier and the Minister of Industrial Development.

That's why we

are adjourning the House: for your trip to Japan. So I hope that when

you come back you'll have plenty to report. I hope that the time you

spend in Hong Kong after the rugby game to Japan will be fruitful too,

because the people of British Columbia are really waiting for the new

industrial strategy in this province. I can't find it, quite frankly,

Mr. Chairman, in what I read of the statements of the Minister in the

"blues" and some of the things he said today.

But I want to suggest three or four things that he might think

about. First of all, we have had a tremendous amount of talk about the

desirability of a copper smelter and a steel mill in British Columbia.

I am not at all sure that the people who have so enthusiastically put

forward these suggestions would continue to be aggressively in favour

of such industrial development were they to visit Osaka, Nagoya,

Pittsburgh, Hamilton and the other areas in North America, Europe and

Asia that have concentrated on this heavy industry.

It's difficult to be certain, looking at the areas around those

mills and in those cities, that such industry really brings wealth.

Most of them look poor, and they are overwhelmingly polluted.

I have never been an advocate of steel mills or copper smelters. I

think they would set British Columbia back. I think we should be

grateful that we can take our copper ore and concentrate it and have

someone else do the filthy job of processing it into blister copper.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I am very serious. I say we should be grateful that someone else

takes on that dirty job, because for about a 10-mile radius around the

copper smelter you have a rain of sulphuric acid. Nothing grows. If we

want to set aside an area of devastation in British Columbia, we will

encourage a copper smelter. With present technology, nothing creates as

much devastation industrially.

You do not have the same amount of destruction with a steel mill,

but I defy anybody to show me an attractive community that has a steel

mill in it. What you are going to have to do to go into steel

production in British Columbia is to write off some area of this

province as an attractive place to live for as long as steel technology

remains in its present state.

It's different for aluminum smelters. Those who have been to Kitimat

recognize that it is a model town, a prosperous town. Aluminum is

smelted, as you know, by an electrolytic process. The important thing

is to have a huge capacity of electricity available.

Of course, Tweedsmuir Park was devastated in

[ Page 2313 ]

preparing a suitable area to supply power to Kitimat. But as far as

the city itself is concerned, it certainly is an attractive one. I

don't think there is any particular worry about having further aluminum

smelters. Copper and steel are in a different category.

What I have repeatedly suggested as an industrial strategy for

British Columbia is to turn to something completely different. That is

to begin looking at the modern growth industries of today which are not

based on trees or minerals, but are based on invention.

Technology is what counts as far as income and prosperity are

concerned. The people who hold down jobs in a computer factory not only

make more money than those who work in a copper smelter but they work

under better conditions and bring greater prosperity to the community

where their factory is located.

The question is: what moves are necessary for us to qualify for a

place in the new industrial revolution which is based on technology and

not resources? Of course, the first thing you have to do is have

technology available. This is where we are weakest in British Columbia.

We have never made any substantial effort at all to develop technology

in this province. We have had a contempt for it; we felt it was only

important to develop the forest and the mineral industry. As a result,

other places like Japan have leaped ahead of Canada and leaped far

ahead of British Columbia. I hope the Minister of Industrial

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) will spend part of his time in Japan not

examining copper smelters and steel mills but looking into the very

superior technology that nation has developed as a result of government

policy.

I think the British Columbia Research Council should have its vote

doubled this year, doubled again next year and doubled again the year

after that. The amount we spend with our British Columbia Research

Council is ridiculously small. It has been one of the zero-growth

activities of the provincial government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member if he is referring to the vote under these estimates.

MR. McGEER: I am referring to zero growth in technology as

far as the government is concerned. The B.C. Research Council happens

to be one. I am glad you mentioned that, Mr. Chairman, because the B.C.

Research Council has had growth, but not as a result of government

participation. They have had greater participation by private industry

which has allowed them to survive and, to a limited degree, prosper.

What I am saying is that single institution should have double the

money from the provincial government that this Minister has provided

this year. Next year it should double again. Maybe we should have

several branches of the B.C. Research Council. Maybe it shouldn't be

all concentrated there at the University of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member indicate under which vote this would come?

MR. McGEER: The B.C. Research Council? Well, I think there is

a vote there. I can't remember whether you were in the chair, Sir, but

I recall we went and discussed one of these line estimates and they

said, "Well, you can't discuss whether it should be larger or smaller;

you can only ask questions as to what they do with it." So the person

who would have to increase the size of that would be the Minister.

It is appropriate, I think, to mention that maybe he shouldn't get

his salary until he tells us why he can't increase that particular

vote. In any event, it's my feeling that the grant is so small —

$330,000, I think. I don't have my estimate book in front of me at the

moment; the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. If it were $660,000

this year and $1,320,000 next year and $2,640,000 the year after, it

wouldn't be growing too fast.

HON. MR. LAUK: How much is realistic this year?

MR. McGEER: I would think double.

I will tell you what I would do with it, Mr. Chairman. I would begin

recruiting…. First of all, I would set a substantial part of that new

money aside as a loan fund for inventors. One of the great problems is

that if you have an invention and you work on it, it costs you a

tremendous amount of money to patent the invention. Once you get the

invention patented, it costs you more money to try and maintain it and

even more money to try and sell it.

I know you are interested in this, Mr. Chairman. I want to give you

an example. Where I take my Ford automobile — I don't have a Mercedes,

Mr. Chairman — there is a mechanic who has come up with an invention of

putting a wire inside the brake drums. The idea is that when your brake

drum gets worn, the wire will make contact with the metal shoe and a

warning light will go on your panel. It is a sort of safety device

where, if Ralph Nader had been chairman of General Motors, it wou