1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st 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, FEBRUARY 14, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

887 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Tabling reports

Housing Corporation of British Columbia annual report. Hon. Mr. Curtis —

Oral questions

Royal commission on BCR operations. Mr. Lauk — 887

Handicapped Persons' Allowance. Mr. Wallace — 888

Food production costs. Mr. Gibson — 889

Federal subsidies to ferries. Mr. Lockstead — 889

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 79.

Mr. Lauk — 890

On the amendment to vote 79.

Ms. Brown — 891

Mr. Cocke — 892

Mr. Gibson — 893

Mr. Lauk — 897

Mr. Stupich — 901

Mr. D'Arcy — 905

Mr. Wallace — 909

Ms. Sanford — 912

Mr. Levi — 915

Mr. Barber — 917

Mr. Cocke — 920

Mr. Lauk — 920

Division on the amendment — 921

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon are a group of 20

Victoria citizens from the James Bay New Horizons centre. I would ask

the members to bid them welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): In the gallery today is a group of

students from the Campbell River Senior Secondary School. They are

accompanied by their teachers: Dianne Kindrick; Chris Round; and Doug

Fieldhouse. I wish the members of the House would make them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery

this afternoon are three young gentlemen from my constituency. You

might remember that while they were shopping at a local grocery store

last week, the place was robbed. While two young companions sped to the

RCMP, one young 16-year-old gentleman stayed and held the robber until

the police could arrive. I would like the House to make welcome Jim

Stratford, Kevin Gilbertson and Gyula Kiss this afternoon.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, roses are red, violets are blue, today is Doug Strongitharm's birthday, happy birthday to you! (Laughter.)

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works):

Today there are several members from my riding of Cariboo in the

gallery; first of all, Mr. and Mrs. Don Baxter from Anahim Lake — Mr.

Baxter is the chairman of School District 27 (Cariboo-Chilcotin) which

is headquartered at Williams Lake; as well as that, from Anahim and

Nimpo Lake, Mr. Dave Hall; from Quesnel, Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Watt and

Mr. Jess Ketchum; and last, but not least, my wife and daughter. I

would like you to welcome them all.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity to ask everyone here to be my valentine.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

is Mrs. Maxine Caldwell and her daughter Elizabeth. I would like the

House to make them welcome.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia

for the year ending October 31, 1976.

Oral questions.

ROYAL COMMISSION

ON BCR OPERATIONS

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the hon. Premier, who on Monday last announced royal commission and

left, like Sir Richard McBride, to Ottawa to do us proud. In view of

the fact that the chairman of the commission has said it is unlikely

the MEL Paving scandal will be dealt with, and a commissioner, David

Chapman, has said he doubts whether witnesses involved in the MEL case

will be called, will the government now amend the specific terms of

reference to include the MEL case and the calling of witnesses involved?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, before I request a reply to the question I would like to refer all of the hon. members to the fourth edition of Beauchesne ,

respecting the asking of questions on the floor of the House: "It is

irregular and improper to multiply with slight variation a similar

question on the same point or to repeat in substance a question already

answered or to which an answer has been refused."

I would suggest to the hon. members that this particular question

has been canvassed on the floor of this House for a number of days with

other members of the cabinet and it would now be improper to ask the

same question again this day.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, because the member

seems to have some difficulty in understanding, I'll say what I said

when the royal commission was named: the terms of reference are very

broad and give them every opportunity, which I expect them to take, to

look into all aspects of the B.C. Railway, as to its history, its

present and the future. I'm sure that the commissioners — in fact I

expect the commissioners — will take full opportunity to look into any

controversies surrounding the past, through all administrations,

through all presidents, all directors, and to deal with management. And

those who expect excitement of a political nature from the commission

may be satisfied. For those who are concerned with the railway in the

present day, I hope that they will have their opportunity to...

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Still no answer!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

[ Page 888 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I see nothing's improved while I've been away, Mr. Speaker.

... have their concerns identified. For the government and the large

majority of the citizens, I certainly expect our concerns about the

future use of the railway and how it can help make this province grow,

to be satisfied by that commission.

Any concerns about any of the negotiations and contracts by the

boards of directors — both the new independent board and the preceding

board, and any other boards — will be fully looked at, I hope, by the

commissioners. I am not giving them any additional instruction other

than the terms of reference and the request that was made to them when

this royal commission was set up. The opportunity — in fact the

obligation — is there for the commissioners to look into all aspects of

the railway; and I expect them to carry out that obligation, as does

this government, this House and the people of B.C. That obligation

rests upon them, and they make take, and should take, as much time as

it takes to resolve the very, very important question surrounding the

British Columbia Railway.

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no. Smokescreen!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: To the Premier.... By the way, thank you for that very lengthy and explicit reply.

The February 2 issue of The Vancouver Sun quotes the Minister

of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has been making the

front pages these days, as saying the royal commission will investigate

the railway boxcar plant, Railwest. As this is not a specific in the

terms of reference of the order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, why is it not

possible for the government to give such a categorical promise on MEL?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the reason I was so explicit

is because of the difficulty of that member and his leader in

understanding the answers and the terms of reference for the royal

commission. I have no intention of reading it out again.

The rail plant, as part of the railway, will automatically be

available for the commissioners to investigate as part of the terms of

reference. Those terms of reference give them every opportunity to

investigate all aspects of that railway. I am hopeful that those who

have a lot to say while they're in this House and outside will make

themselves available to that commission.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that those who have been most vocal won't hide

behind this House but will go out and make their statements in public.

MR BARRETT: Whitewash.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS' ALLOWANCE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Human Resources, or his acting deputy. Don't all rush at once. Could I

be informed who is acting on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We'll take it as notice.

MR. WALLACE: Well, perhaps I could ask the Premier. He's a very attentive member of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no.

MR. WALLACE: On second thought, the Premier has been out of

the province for a few days, so let's try the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) .

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): None of them know anything about it.

MR. WALLACE: I shouldn't be joking in this way, Mr. Speaker. It should really perhaps be the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) .

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Maybe we'll all stand up. Everybody can answer your questions.

MR. WALLACE: Now you're all in suspense. With regard to the

case of Mr. Bob Newman in Vancouver who was assaulted while living on

$265 per month handicapped allowance and who subsequently received $300

from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, can the minister tell

the House whether that $300, awarded under legislation which has

nothing to do with social assistance legislation and nothing to do with

the minister's responsibilities, will be taken from Mr. Newman's

subsequent handicapped allowance payments?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice on behalf of the minister.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could I just comment on this matter

of asking supplementary questions when an hon. minister has taken a

question as notice? Unless it's very pertinent to the question that was

originally asked, it should be held up until the reply comes back to

the House.

MR. LAUK: Well, I just wondered where the minister was. Is he meeting with the marketing boards this morning? (Laughter.)

[ Page 889 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

FOOD PRODUCTION COSTS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Agriculture. After the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm'

s) comment on his portfolio in headlines this morning, I'm tempted

to ask the minister what he thinks of the welfare programme, but I'll

refrain from that. I'll ask him if, in view of the latest heat-up in

the war between the marketing boards and the food distributors and the

concern with which all consumers are following this, he is now finally

prepared to commission a royal commission into the cost of food and the

whole production situation in British Columbia.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) and myself

are dealing with that matter and we'll be coming up with a proposal as

to what the best approach is. We'll not only be looking at what the

effect is on the consumer of this province and what marketing boards

are doing but also what the effect is on the producer of this province,

which is the farmer.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary on the same subject, Mr. Speaker,

to the Attorney-General: in view of the Attorney-General's well-known

views on marketing boards, I would ask if he would be intervening in

this court case on the side of the boards or on the side of Super-Valu.

MR. WALLACE: On the side of the angels.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'd like to give an expanded answer on that question, Mr. Member, but today I'll take it as notice.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): A further supplementary

to the minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. I would ask whether or not

he agrees with the statements made by the Minister of Human Resources

as reported this morning in the press.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what the context

of the Minister of Human Resources' comments was. I know it's in the

paper but I don't think you can recognize that maybe they were taken

out of context. I haven't had the opportunity to talk to the Minister

of Human Resources and I will be doing that when he arrives.

MRS. WALLACE: I would ask the minister if he has read the report in the press and whether he agrees with the content of that report.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, you must realize that that

would be an improper question to ask. It would have to be rephrased on

a positive basis rather than in reference to a newspaper.

MRS. WALLACE: To the Minister of Agriculture: does he agree

with the reported statement made by the Minister of Human Resources

that the marketing boards encourage poor growers to be subsidized by

the taxpayers' money? Does he agree with that statement?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I have

not had the opportunity to discuss it with the Minister of Human

Resources and it is a comment that has been made in the paper.

FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO FERRIES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I would like to

know, Mr. Minister, if you or the government obtained any federal

commitments for subsidies to improve ferry and/or transportation

services to the mid- and north-coast areas of this province.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications):

Mr. Speaker, this important matter was discussed on three separate

occasions with the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, with half-a-dozen

federal ministers and with most of the Members of Parliament for

British Columbia. They know our position now. They know our

requirements and I expect that this matter will be dealt with in Ottawa

in the next two week.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A very short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Did

the minister obtain any federal commitments regarding subsidies for

routes 1 and 2 for B.C. Ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this was the subject matter

referred to in my earlier remarks and a decision along that line, we

expect, will be taken in the next two weeks by the federal cabinet.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Minister, perhaps you could tell

this House when you're going to take steps to restore the previous

levels of ferry and transportation services to all parts of this

coastal area. We've been waiting two weeks for an answer now. By the

time we get around to implementing this service, the summer will be

gone.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we expect to improve on the services that the federal government has been providing for many years.

[ Page 890 ]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a supplementary to the

minister, would the minister tell us whether or not the Premier has

been somewhat of a hindrance in this matter in that in his

suggestion...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, "Order"?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: I've got the floor, friend. I wonder if the

minister realizes the Premier has been somewhat of a detriment in the

negotiation in that he's calling at the same time for a regional area

in the Atlantic which would thereby, using the present terms of

reference, obviate the possibility of the Atlantic provinces receiving

$100 million for their interprovincial ferry service at the present

time. There seems to be a dichotomy growing over there. I'd like to

hear what the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications has to

say about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, on your question, the first

part of it is certainly argumentative, and is therefore out of order.

If the minister wishes to reply on another basis he can.

MR. COCKE: It's a straightforward question, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in my recollection, no Premier

of a province has made as much impact on the federal cabinet ministers

in Ottawa as the present one.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, perhaps I could take this

opportunity to give the ruling that was alluded to just at the hour of

dismissal on Friday.

On Friday last an amendment was offered to the vote then before the

House, namely vote 79. However, the amendment offered was not in the

form of an amendment but as a separate and independent motion, without

referring or in attaching itself in any way to the motion sought to be

amended. This appeared to the Chair to be irregular.

The difficulty with the proposed amendment becomes readily seen when

it is remembered that each vote in Committee of Supply is a separate

and distinct motion. Bourinot ,

fourth edition, page 425, expresses it this way: "Each vote or

resolution is necessarily a question in itself, to be proposed, amended

and put as any motion or bill in the House."

It may be urged that as there is only one vote presently under

discussion and, further, that since the hon. Minister of Economic

Development is mentioned, then by some necessary implication the motion

offered can only refer to the vote under discussion. In the opinion of

the Chair, any such necessary implication cannot rectify the

deficiency, any more than a motion in the House seeking to amend a

motion without referring to or attaching itself to the motion could be

so regularized by some implication.

The Journals of the House confirm the view of the Chair in

that they show — in 1973 at page 203, in 1974 at page 62, in 1975 at

page 117, and in 1976 at page 155 — the vote sought to be amended has

been specifically stated in the proposed amendment.

In the absence of any other guidance provided by earlier ruling of

the Chair, it is my opinion, for the reasons stated, that the proposed

amendment in its present form is not in order.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking

the time to deliberate over that proposed amendment. 1, myself, spent

tireless hours on the weekend and came to a similar conclusion.

(Laughter.)

1 therefore, Mr. Chairman, move that the salary of the hon. Minister of Economic Development as provided for in vote 79....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. member, so that this motion

could be in order, perhaps we should call the vote first and then the

hon. member would be recognized to make the motion.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 79: minister's office, $141,324 — continued.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, last day I was being rushed. I was

trying to get through all of the questions that the minister hadn't

answered all last week. There were 36 of them that I had recorded. My

colleagues inform me that there are even more questions that have not

been answered at all by the hon. minister. Therefore I move that the

salary of the hon. Minister of Economic Development, as provided for in

vote 79, be reduced by $23,999 to the sum of $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion seems to be in order. The debate now

moves to this motion and, by the rules of our House, the scope of

debate is narrowed considerably and must be strictly in keeping with

the motion itself.

[ Page 891 ]

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to support

this amendment because I'm a compassionate person. I really would have

liked to see the minister allowed to live on $160 a month, which is

what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is asking

20,000 people in this province to live on. He has assured us that that

is a livable sum and I think that this would have given the Minister of

Economic Development an opportunity to see what people are being forced

to live on in this province as a result of some of his economic

policies. However, it was brought to my attention that to ask the

Minister of Economic Development to live on $160 a month would have

been ruled out of order, although it would have been certainly much

more compassionate than asking him to live on $1 a year.

I am particularly interested in talking about the unemployment

situation as a result of this minister's actions. Now we were told

recently that there are 112,000 people in this province out of work. I

think that maybe we should break that down into some statistics. I want

to talk specifically about the women involved in these 112,000 people

who are presently out of work. Of the 112,000, Mr. Chairman, 47 per

cent, or 53,000, of that number are women. There were 53,000 women in

January of this year registered with Canada Manpower as looking for

employment. This sum should be compared with the 43,000 women who in

January, 1976, were registered as looking for work.

If my arithmetic serves me right, that is an increase of over 10,000

women in this province looking for work in the one year that that

Minister of Economic Development has been responsible for the economic

growth of this province. This would seem to indicate that he is a

failure, that contrary to there being growth, the opposite has been

taking place as a result of his policies, coupled with the result of

the policies of his colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) and others. There are more people looking for work, and

certainly many more women looking for work, in this province than there

were a year ago. In my own riding of Vancouver, the average percentage

of the work force now looking for work is 9.2 per cent. Of that number

33.3 per cent of these are women. If you couple this with the fact that

the average income of the working woman is going down rather than up,

Mr. Chairman, then you can understand why it is that I have to support

the amendment put forward by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

This Minister of Economic Development is a financial burden on the

women of this province. He's a disaster for everybody in this province

who is looking for work, and at the same time, he is reporting in his

very glossy annual report that he has a women's economic rights branch

which is helping women in this province to find work. It's really

difficult to reconcile the pretty pictures in his annual report, the

nice words and the nice statements, with the facts, because we are told

that the terms of reference of his women's economic rights branch are

to develop employment or to create and foster economic development in

all of British Columbia in terms of meeting the needs of all of the

people.

Of course, when he was reporting on his department he gave to the

women's economic rights department two sentences. He just said that it

will continue to be a part of the ministry, and that they are now

involved in doing some manpower studies in terms of the development in

the north, none of which, Mr. Chairman, bears out the statistics which

we have before us at this time.

The Minister of Economic Development has not created any employment.

The Minister of Economic Development has not done anything about the

increase in bankruptcies among the small-business population in the

city of Vancouver and in the province at large. The Minister of

Economic Development has not done anything about the fact that, as a

result of his government's policies, so many areas that used to be able

to employ people now find themselves unable to do so.

Most of the women in this province work in service industries. They

are concentrated in the service areas such as the retail business, the

restaurant business and the tourist industry. As you know, and as we

will find out in more detail when we come to examine the estimates of

the minister responsible for tourism in this province, it was an

extremely disastrous year as a result of the fiscal policies to do with

the 100 per cent increase in the ferry rates, the increase in the sales

tax and other increases which this Minister of Economic Development

condoned and voted in support of when they were introduced by his

government.

For these reasons, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I find that I have to

support the amendment of the first member for Vancouver Centre. If we

continue to have the hon. member for South Peace River as the Minister

of Economic Development, the economic status in this province is going

to go from worse to worse to worse.

Another phenomenon is happening, Mr. Chairman — one which I would

like to share with you and with the minister responsible for economic

development. The unemployment situation is so acute that we are finding

that men are now moving into the areas of employment that were

traditionally reserved for women. This is increasing the number of

women who are finding themselves unemployed and unable to work at a

time, I should remind you, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is cutting back on subsidies to day

care

[ Page 892 ]

and trying to save $30 million for his department by cutting out services to people in general.

Traditional areas, Mr. Chairman, such as the restaurant business,

waitresses, retail, homemaker services and clerical work are now being

invaded by men. I'm not saying that this should not be, because I

believe in affirmative action and I believe that all people should be

able to work wherever they want to, but what I'm saying to you is that

this is affirmative action as a result of negative policies and not

affirmative action as a result of positive policies. In fact, we are

finding that as a result of the really negative effects of that

minister's policies on the economy of this province, as a result of the

negative effects resulting in the increase in bankruptcies, in the

increase in small businesses going under, in the increase in the number

of people looking for work, affirmative action of a very negative sort

is taking place in this province.

Again, I want to restate my figures, Mr. Chairman. In January, 1975,

there were 37,000 women unemployed in this province. In January, 1976,

that number went up to 43,000 women. In January, 1977, Mr. Chairman,

despite the existence of the Minister of Economic Development's women's

economic rights branch, which is supposed to create employment for

women in this province, that number was again increased to 53,000 women

unemployed in this province and looking for work, and there's a

difference between being unemployed and not looking for work and being

unemployed and looking for work. The figure that I am using, Mr.

Chairman, is only that of the women who are looking for work — 53,000

in the province as a whole, 9 per cent of the work force in the

Vancouver area — and of the 9 per cent in the work force in the

Vancouver area, 33.3 per cent of those are women.

Because of this minister's policies, and because of the really

destructive impact it's having on the work force in general and, in

particular, on the female work force, which is trying to carry its

burden in terms of developing some kind of economic independence, I

find that I am forced to support the amendment introduced by the first

member for Vancouver Centre in saying that this minister's salary

should be reduced to $1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm almost reluctant to support the

amendment. I'm not quite sure it's far reaching enough. The member for

Vancouver Centre is suggesting we reduce the minister's salary to $1.

When you wonder about the dollar you wonder whether or not the minister

really warrants the $1 either.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Economic Development — a minister in a very sensitive

portfolio and the Premier indicated to this House that they were reluctant to

do anything about his tenure in office when we were asking some time ago about

that very tenure. The reason we were asking about it was because of the fact

that we said there were business failures beyond belief in the province. I know

I've spent the weekend discussing the question with business people and

they're sorely afraid.

Mr. Chairman, while I discussed this matter with the business

community and others, and discussed the question of unemployment, I ran

into a very interesting phenomenon in this respect. I have a little

carton here before me. I can best express the government's policy as

shown by their actions. Mr. Chairman, we have an admitted number of

unemployed in this province of 112,000. Now we know it's considerably

more. As the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) said,

that's just those who are on the list, those who are registered

unemployed. We know that the list is much larger than that if we were

to go out and find those people who are not even registered any longer.

Mr. Chairman, in the face of this, the government, in its own

policy, is creating even further havoc in our economy by buying from

Alberta the very forms that they use in the Department of Labour in

this province. I'm told that there are thousands and thousands of forms

that Lawson Business Forms (Alberta) Ltd. print for the Department of

Labour. This particular form was — I believe it's apprentice — "CEs

tentative technical training assignment,

part 6."

MR. LAUK: Where was it printed?

MR. COCKE: In Edmonton, Alberta, by Lawson Business Forms (Alberta) Ltd.

MR. LAUK: Is that where the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) buys his suits?

MR. COCKE: That's the same general area where the Minister of Mines buys his suits.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: I don't know whether or not they're saving the

sales tax, but I do know this, Mr. Chairman: that Minister of Economic

Development hasn't even got enough muscle in his government to reduce

unemployment in this province by at least seeing to it that that

government buys their business forms from a B.C. printing firm. Mr.

Chairman, how does it work?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, there sits the half-boiled egg, the

Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, it's interesting. You know, we're going

to have to have a

[ Page 893 ]

new slogan in this province: "Inquiries, B.C.'s No. 1 industry."

Anyway, back to the Minister of Economic Development. Why can't he

do something about a situation where we are sending away work from our

province, sending work to Lawson Business Forms, Alberta? For a while

they were shipping through almost a storefront subsidiary on Kingsway.

But now, Mr. Chairman, in place of that, they are sending the forms

from Lawson's in Alberta to Thunderbird Press in British Columbia, and

from Thunderbird Press they go to the Department of Labour. Thousands

and thousands and thousands of forms, Mr. Chairman, are printed away

from B.C.

The minister, whom we are being asked by the member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) to pay $1, hasn't even had enough concern over this

problem to look up. He is still writing letters to his constituents

begging them to support him in the next election. Mr. Chairman, it's

not good enough.

The Minister of Mines is back; we can tell by the way the House has rather lowered its level just slightly.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Garbage," he says.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment because of the fact that the minister

has seen fit not only not to answer questions but not to give any kind of direction

for his department over the next number of months. He has said to us in effect:

"I'm really not interested in what the opposition thinks. I'm really

not interested in the fact that there are a great number of unemployed in the

province. I'm really not interested in the fact that businesses are going

bankrupt at a rate that has been almost unknown in this province." He's

not interested to the extent that he could have even looked up when a person

was drawing to his attention that one of his colleagues — and probably a number

of his colleagues; this is the only one who has been brought to my attention

so far — is ordering forms from outside our province.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that minister should hang his head in

shame when he gets up to endeavour to justify why we should even in

fact pay him $1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have given a lot of thought to

this amendment because, among other things, I know this is a

hard-working minister. But you have to consider value for your dollar

too. Just based on the single question of the information that the

people of British Columbia have been able to get on northeast coal,

which is the most important question for this province in this year,

well, I say that I have to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a "trust us" government. They're not giving us

any information; they just want us to trust them. You know what the

Premier said?

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you spell that? T-R-U-S-S?

MR. GIBSON: "Truss us." Yes — "truss us up." You know what

the Premier said when he came back? He was talking about a superport at

Prince Rupert. The people of Prince Rupert might have some interest in

that, but he said he wouldn't suggest a cost estimate because — and

here is his word — it might "frighten" people. How much money is going

to be spent in northern British Columbia by one or more levels of

government is going to frighten people — so we don't have a right to

that information.

Now the minister we are looking at has been following the same tack with respect to northeast coal. I studied very carefully in Hansard what he had to say on Friday.

You listen to this, Mr. Premier. You need some of this information.

We need some of the information you have that you brought back from

Ottawa. The Premier didn't make a statement today, Mr. Chairman. Did

you notice that? I don't know if that's good news or if that's bad

news. Maybe the good news is that he didn't make a statement. But I am

going to ask you some questions right now, Mr. Premier and Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

What has this minister said about northeast coal? When are we going

to get the information? I am quoting a little bit from Friday. It says

we are going to get it "when we finish our negotiations with Ottawa."

How does he know that we in this House support the kind of deal he is

trying to make with Ottawa? Maybe we do; maybe we don't. Until we know

the details we can't pronounce on that.

And he said: "Some hard decisions are shortly going to be made."

Hard decisions obviously made, Mr. Chairman, without the benefit of the advice

or the knowledge of the members of this assembly. After all, it's only

public money that the minister is pledging in his deals one way or another.

"Trust us." Economically? No, Mr. Chairman, I don't trust them

economically. What did "trust us" give us? It gave us the Dease Lake

monster, on which the minister still hasn't been able to give us a revenue

projection. There should be that kind of revenue projection before one more

penny is spent on that line. If that's the way the minister runs economics

in this province, then what's going to happen on this northeast coal? "Trust

us" on December 11, 1975, is what has since given us the ICBC increases,

the sales tax increases and the body blow to tourism through B.C. Ferries. That's

what "trust us" has given; that's what the economic management

of this province by that minister and by that government has given us.

Mr. Chairman, I don't trust that minister on northeast coal; I don't

trust any government unless I have the facts. Those kinds of

businessmen are quite

[ Page 894 ]

capable of producing a ton of coal for a cost of

$65, selling it out of this province at a cost of $55, bragging about

it after they cover up the shipping costs, and then doing it 10 million

times and saying that's good for the province of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Shame!

MR. GIBSON: Talk about being bottom-line men! They've shown

themselves to be something else than that over the years, if that's

supposed to be financial wisdom. The bottom line of the B.C. Railway

books is out every year, as the Social Credit administration has had

the figures written in invisible red ink. That's the kind of bottom

line they are. Their bottom line is votes, whether it makes sense or

not.

Mr. Chairman, by the minister's own admission on Friday, $3 million

worth of studies has been completed on northeast coal in this province.

How many dollars' worth of studies have we had? That's $1 for every

man, woman and child in British Columbia, and we haven't had two bits

worth of information out of that minister on this particular topic. Mr.

Chairman, to me that is an offence against the democratic process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: You say the people aren't worthy enough to have

the information. That's an offence against this Legislature, which is

supposed to vote the money for this department. I think it's a pretty

despicable management of the news and information in this province on,

I say again, the most important economic question that will come before

us this year.

I'll tell you something, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to make a flat

statement, and I challenge that minister to stand up and deny it — or

the Premier, for that matter. Northeast coal is not economic at the

present price of $55 — period. The minister is not reacting to that one

at all, because he knows that what I have just said is correct.

MR. LAUK: Or he doesn't know at all, which is worse.

MR. GIBSON: He may not know at all, Mr. Member, but I suspect

he does know because out of those $3 million worth of studies, I think

he's read the summaries of one or two of them. He's getting pretty

gravely concerned now.

Let me give you a few figures, Mr. Chairman, about northeast coal:

the operating cost is going to be at least $14 a ton — Kaiser's

operating cost now is $12, so you're not going to do it cheaper than

$14 up in the northeastern

section of British Columbia; the rail

charges are going to be at least $18; the port charges are going to be

at least $1.50 a ton; we know what the royalty is — $1.50 a ton; the

depreciation per ton is going to be at least $10, and that is

depreciating over 15 years a $150 per annual ton investment; the

interest is going to be $15, and that's taking an interest cost of 10

per cent.

Mr. Chairman, all of these are today's forecasts. Remember, Kaiser

almost doubled its cost from $90 million to $170 million during the

course of completion. So these costs can escalate pretty seriously. But

I'm telling you that these are reasonable forecasts right today. When

you add all of that up, it comes to $60. What can you sell it for? You

can sell it for $55, and there's no profit there; there's no taxes

there.

You need $70 coal for a decent return on equity, and that's 70

current dollars — I'm not talking about inflated dollars — out of that

part of the province. Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the average mine

properties up there: the Quintette; the Saxon; most of the Sukunka.

There may be one or two easily mined seams that can lower those figures

if you get enough volume. Unless the minister chooses to get up and

contradict those figures, which I have got by the best guesstimates

available to me — and I would much rather have the benefit of the $3

million worth of studies the minister has — then we've got to have the

answers to a lot of questions in this chamber.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, all of these figures assume a 10 million

ton steady-state situation. They don't say anything about the buildup

period when you're building up one million tons, two million tons, and

so on, but your basic roadbed and rolling stock and most of your

infrastructure is already in place.

So what are the facts, Mr. Chairman? We deserve to know them. You

can make anything go with unlimited taxpayers' money. I hope this one

will go. I desperately hope that northeast coal will go for British

Columbia. But will you give us the facts so that somehow we can know

that all your talk means something and is not just a cruel joke on the

people of this province?

You know, we can't afford uneconomic development. We've got enough

difficulties in this province without putting our limited resources

into uneconomic development. There are some other things that we should

be building — as Mr. Chips will agree — such as pulp mills in this

province, that we know will provide the jobs. Yet we have the minister,

quoted here in The Vancouver Sun of October 27, 1976, and I'm quoting him here. First of all, the paragraph before that said:

"Over the last year, the government has insisted any provincial

money put into the northwest" — they mean the northeast, I think — "would have to be paid back by the mining companies in the

form of rail rates and service charges. But Phillips indicated this position

is changing. 'We don't know if coal can pay its

[ Page 895 ]

way, and if it can't, government might have to put in some

of the infrastructure. Mind you, I'd like to see coal pay its way, but what

industry can do that in Canada now?'"

Mr. Chairman, what kind of Minister of Economic Development is that

who's saying: "What industry in Canada can pay its way now?" That

minister had better realize that most of our industries can pay their

way, pay taxes, pay for the social programmes we have in this country

and pay decent wages to the employees, who in turn pay taxes again and

pay for more of those social programmes. If they can't pay their way,

and if the minister really believes that all the industries of Canada

can't pay their way so he's going to subsidize another one, then he has

a curious picture of the British Columbia economy. That will bring us

to the same results in the end as the group that he criticizes so much

that held the previous government.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Do you want to build a pulp mill?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I

would love to see the government take some leadership in getting a pulp

mill going in this province. You know that we've got the workers and

we've got the chips that are rotting in place and in three or four

years, I think we're going to have the markets. I think there's a good

chance of it, if you do it on the Quebec model. But, again, let's do

some studies and find out about it. You see, this is basically what

bothers me about the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Chairman —

the fact that those studies are there and they haven't been given to

us. At the same time — and we'll get to his estimates later — I'd ask

the Minister of Forests to do a study on a new pulp mill in this

province.

So, Mr. Chairman what's happening on this northeast picture? &

companies are flocking around. They've got the government's message —

Peace at any price. Peace development at any price. Peace coal

development at any price. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to suggest to you the

minister has nothing else in his economic development bag for this

province. Well, if that's what it is, we'd better know. British

Petroleum sure has the message, you know? They just put $30 million

into Sukunka. And some of the companies in the southeast, I think, are

getting the message too. Here's a little clipping, January 15, 1977,

which suggests that Rio Algom is starting to .cool it out a little bit

in southeastern British Columbia, because they see that northeast is

the anointed area. So I see they've brought in a second.... I'll just

quote the

article here: "The second and most recent proposal is for a

smaller project, producing only 1.5 million tons of coal annually." The

first project, Mr. Chairman, was supposed to be 3 million tons. Maybe

now it's not going to go ahead at all — who knows? — because of what

the minister is doing up in the northeast. So I want to know whether

he's sacrificing one region for another.

Mr. Chairman, we want development in British Columbia and I would be

so happy to see that northeast coal developed. We want our share of the

federal lolly in this province and I want to see us get it, but we have

only so much money. We do not have money to spend on white elephants

like the university hospital monument to the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) . We do not have money to spend on unproven things

like the other $ 100 million that has to be put into the Dease Lake

extensions — until we have the revenue studies to show it's worthwhile,

and I want to know if we have the money for coal. Here are the

questions I want answered, about market projections, supply areas and

costs, financing and feasibility and ownership, infrastructure and

manpower. I want them all added up to show there's an economic benefit.

We have got a little bit of basic data. We have the document dated

February, 1976: "Coal in British Columbia: — A Technical Appraisal."

This was part one of a two-part document, Mr. Chairman. It is stripped

of much of its sensitive material, which was put in

Part 2 and never

made public. The figures are at least 18 months old, but at least it's

a start. The government has later figures but we can't get them. But it

gives us a bit of information.

First of all, let's talk about markets — volume, competition and

price. In terms of volume, the Japan forecast is critical and they only

forecast around 3 per cent growth a year, and that is probably not

unreasonable. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the 1976 shipments to Japan

dropped and the market softened considerably. So things at the moment

are going in the wrong direction there. The European forecast growth

seems to me a little high — 6.5 per cent. It shows us supplying eight

million tons by 1995. The Canadian projection at about 4.5 per cent

seems about reasonable. But out of all this mixed world picture, Mr.

Chairman, the projected British Columbia growth is supposed to be 8.5

per cent. I want to know if the minister has commissioned a recent

market study. I'd like to have the details of it. Who's doing it?

Then we get into the question of competition. Listen to page 89 of

that Coal Task Force report. It mentions some of the potential

suppliers. It doesn't have these potential suppliers stealing any of

our market, but I'm telling you they might. Listen to this:

"China has immense resources of coal but has not

participated to any extent in international trading to date. It has

been assumed that China will not undertake a major

[ Page 896 ]

role in international coking-coal trade during the projection period."

That is, up to 1995.

Mr. Chairman, who can predict the activities of that sleeping

economic giant, China, and what she might do for foreign exchange

before 1995? My God, that's a pretty sanguine projection that, with

those immense resources of coal, they won't be trying to cut into the

Japanese market. They're going to need hard currency to trade with

Japan — that's obvious.

Look at this — I'm quoting again:

"The Soviet Union will supply quantities of coal to

Japan in the early 1980s from Siberia but is not expected to become a

major international trader in the market areas considered to 1995."

Again, a very questionable assumption. The Soviet

Union at the moment is the largest producer of coal in the world, of

course, and to suggest that she's not likely to become an international

factor by 1995 worries me a little bit.

And then, finally, you have the fact that, in terms of competition

geographically, Australian coal can undercut us any day in the week

when it gets into a real cost war; and let's keep that in the back of

our minds.

Then let's go on to the technological competition. There are direct

reduction mills planned in many of the smaller countries for steel that

may have the result of shrinking the Japanese exports of steel, and

therefore our coke market. As you know, Mr. Chairman, it take about 0.7

tons of coke per ton of steel.

We have no reason to believe that the U.S. and the European Economic

Community will continue to expand their purchases of Japanese steel at

the present rate, and yet that's an assumption in the forecast.

We know for certain that what's called the briquetting technique,

whereby thermal coal is mixed with metallurgical coal — thermal coal

being much, much cheaper and less revenue to British Columbia — can

change the coking process in a way that will reduce our metallurgical

coal exports. We can see, not just on the horizon but in actual use in

some places, what's called the formed coking process, which doesn't use

metallurgical coal at all. It starts out with thermal coal and upgrades

it and uses it for coking purposes; so that is another technological

threat to us.

As to price, Mr. Chairman, the market is very sensitive to any kind

of oversupply, and commodities historically have moved down as well as

up. Then what for British Columbia?

So with all of these uncertainties, I say to the minister: what

market studies has he done? Will he not produce them? To not do so is

irresponsible.

Now I want to talk a little bit about supply areas and the costs of

those areas. There's a couple of planned expansions in southeastern

British Columbia that the minister well knows of: a two-million-ton

increment at Kaiser Resources; 1.5-million-ton increment at Elk River —

total 3.5 million tons. There's only so much Japanese market expansion.

I want to ask the minister: if he goes ahead with his northeast

plans, is he going to cancel the southeast plans for another decade?

That's what it'll amount to. Or if the southeast goes ahead, what's

going to happen to the northeast? Those 3.5 million tons that come on

stream in the southeast are going to again use up the market for a few

years. The minister knows the comparison. The infrastructure in the

southeast is largely in; the transportation network is largely in.

There are enormous expenditures required in both those areas in the

northeast. So is he going to write off this southeast potential in

order that he can go ahead with his northeast project? I want to know

the answer to that.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Why don't you stay in the House once in a while? Then you'd hear the answers.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, Mr. Minister, you've never given the answer to that one.

Now what about financing? How much are we asking the federal

government for? And who gets it — the B.C. government or the companies?

What kind of deal is being suggested? How do we know, Mr. Chairman,

that that minister, or the Premier, when they go down to Ottawa to talk

about coal, are asking for enough — or asking for it in the right way?

We just don't have the information. How do we know if we can support

that minister without the information?

Look at the financing of the railway. It's going to cost something

like $300 million to $500 million for a 10-million-ton development, if

we can go on the cost escalations that happen in these things.

I want to ask the minister a very simple question as a director of

the railway, let alone northeast coal: do you guarantee that a

compensatory rate will be charged on the movement of that coal? Because

if it's not, Mr. Chairman, it's a subsidy by the people of British

Columbia to the outfits that are going in there. It's one way in which

they can sell that coal that costs $65 a ton for $55 a ton and still

pretend that it's making a bit of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many jobs?

MR. GIBSON: I'm getting to that, Mr. Member. How many jobs? Indeed, that's a good question.

On the ownership, I want to know what the minister's thoughts are on

the Canadian ownership of these new mines, if they're to be opened. I

want to

[ Page 897 ]

know another principle: if the government of

British Columbia is taking any risk in these immense projects, are we

also going to be in a position — in an equity sense — to reap some of

the proceeds?

I want to know something about the infrastructure. There are

estimates of around $350 million for the infrastructure, in terms of

townslite, roads and power. Does the government of British Columbia pay

or do the companies pay? He suggested on Friday that perhaps the

municipalities might pay, which is clearly insane.

MR. WALLACE: What are they going to use for money?

MR. GIBSON: I suggest there's going to have to be some kind

of a mixture. There's going to have to be an allocation of these

charges, depending on whether the facility — whatever it is — is put in

place exclusively for that particular industry or whether it's

something that would have to be done anyway. People who live in British

Columbia have to have houses and sewers and so on, no matter where they

live. But on the other hand, if these towns are going to be bunkhouse

towns and not the principal residence for many of the people who live

there, then you've got an incremental cost. That's the allocation

procedure that he has to go through with respect to every one of those

infrastructure costs. I want to know what that allocation is and what

the people of this province are going to be called upon to bear in

terms of extraordinary infrastructure costs.

I want to know if any special tax deal is proposed for the companies

going in there. I think that this House has the right to have that kind

of information and have it debated in the public forum before we go

ahead.

I want to know what kind of studies have been done in terms of

manpower training, because to the extent that jobs are created by these

new developments, I'm concerned that they might be filled almost

entirely from people outside of British Columbia, unless we get our

training programmes geared up in advance. If we're trying to solve

unemployment problems in British Columbia by this kind of development

then we'd better make sure that our people have a fair shot at these

jobs. I know the minister has these forecast — for $3 million he must

have it! How many of these projected jobs are going to be filled (

a) from B.C. (

b) from the rest of Canada (

c) from immigration from other

parts of the world? What kind of manpower turnover do they expect in

these studies? Are they expecting another Alcan-smelter-at-Kitimat kind

of turnover with its enormous rates?

I want to know what all these various studies say about alternate

use of coal: synthetic natural gas as a use of coal; the petro-chemical

developments that can be built on top of that; the opportunities for in

situ generation of synthetic natural gas by subterranean burning of

coal fields. What kind of research has been done on that? I know

there's some research being done in Alberta, Mr. Chairman, that B.C.

Hydro, contributes to to a certain extent. But what are we doing here

in British Columbia? It's not a tiny question. There are billions upon

billions of tons of coal in this province that are locked underground,

uneconomic for mining by any kind of conventional means, and yet which

might well be approached by the in situ method of reclamation.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, when you consider the loss of what you

necessarily have to leave in the general pattern of underground mines,

the efficiency of the in situ generation — that can run up to 60 or 70

per cent, at least in above-ground test models — is not bad. As a

matter of fact, in some cases it's better than what you'd get with

underground mining.

So, Mr. Chairman, those are a bunch of simple questions. They don't

seem too much to ask for a Legislature, on behalf of a group of

taxpayers, !hat, as every week goes by, is becoming more and more

committed to a certain pattern of economic development for this

province — committed in negotiations with the federal government, with

the Japanese and other customers around the world, and with the coal

companies. All of these commitments, as I say, Mr. Chairman, unknown to

this Legislature.

I very much hope that the northeast coal development will prove to

be economic and that it can go ahead. I want to do everything that I

can to encourage it. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that something of that

magnitude to the province deserves the light of day. The people of this

province must have the facts in what — and I say it again — is the most

important economic decision facing this province this year. Mr.

Chairman, I say to you, it is absolutely scandalous if that minister

continues to withhold from this House that $3 million worth of studies,

the results of the negotiations he has and all of the information which

he has at his fingertips. It's too important. Without that information,

Mr. Chairman, I certainly cannot support the salary vote for this

minister and I'll be supporting the attempt to reduce it.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the minister won't answer the hon. leader of the Liberal Party, I will.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: The minister stood up in this House last week and

complained bitterly about opposition attacks being negative, lacking

any constructive support for the attack, and he sits now, during an

amendment on his salary vote, silent, as the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) delivered

[ Page 898 ]

just perhaps one of the best-researched speeches on

the northeast coal development delivered from the opposition side of

the House. I can remember delivering one slightly better when I was the

Minister of Economic Development (laughter) — but only slightly.

MR. WALLACE: Your modesty shames me.

MR. BARRETT: You're too generous, Gary.

MR. LAUK: Too generous?

Mr. Chairman, the DREE studies were negotiated by me with the

federal government with two basic ingredients that no longer exist.

MR. BARRETT: Common sense and talent.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) is not in his seat, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: It looks like the regular occupant to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: One essential ingredient to the development of

northeast coal was an indigenous, domestic British Columbia steel mill.

That's No. 1.

No. 2 was that the $3 million was to go to the study of the development — the cost-benefit ratio....

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

MR. LAUK: One of the problems with that minister is he doesn't take the critique of the opposition seriously...

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody does!

MR. LAUK: ...but I'll tell you who is, Mr. Chairman: the

people of this province. This government is absolutely desperate to

have an announcement in the northeast coal development, and my friend,

the leader of the Liberal Party, catalogued

chapter and verse why it's

impossible and why the federal government thinks it's impossible. I'll

tell you why I think, and I know, that the federal government thinks

it's impossible. DREE has participated in those studies in the

northeast coal development. DREE says that the parameters of the

development of that coal have changed now that the British Columbia

government has lost the contract with respect to the steel mill.

Secondly, it does not become economically viable unless the buoyant and

increased volume of metallurgical coal traffic was proved up.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated before, both those factors are no

longer there. It was pointless to proceed with the studies unless the

steel mill proceeded. That would have taken up at least 50 per cent of

the production of the Quintette and Sukunka coal supply in the long

term. It was absolute madness to consider the development of the

northeast coal project within the next 10 years without those two major

factors. They asked me to make a constructive suggestion. Let me tell

you something. When we took office, the Department of Trade and

Industry was a zero — there was nobody there. There were two economists

who had been there for 30 years, there were a couple of secretaries,

and that was it. There was no Development Corporation, no programmes,

nothing.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): When we took over there weren't any files!

MR. LAUK: This is the mentality of this government, Mr.

Chairman. For 14 months they've been talking about files, but they

haven't come up with one concrete suggestion to provide jobs for the

people of British Columbia — not one. Now let me say this: in three and

a half years the department was built up and the Development

Corporation was established. We instituted the strongest trade mission

programme anywhere in Canada. We instituted one of the most beneficial

development corporations anywhere in Canada. It was designed to help

the community businessman, not big business, as it now is designed. We

contracted for a steel mill, we had a contract on the table for a

copper smelter, and we were going to proceed with the northeast coal

development. All of that has gone down the tube. We had a northwest

rail agreement — gone down the tube. Every step of this disastrous

government has been a direct and fatal blow to the economy of British

Columbia.

This minister talks about long-range planning. That is a joke. That

is a clownish statement. It is absolutely full-faced against the facts.

The fact is they lost the steel mill. I fear that the copper smelter

will not proceed. I should go up to Kamloops and check that out. At

least the bulldozers were out before they took office. Maybe they

couldn't destroy that one.

Everything this minister touches turns to failure — everything, Mr.

Chairman. I have nothing against him personally. I just do not think

that he is competent for his job and he should be removed from office

[ Page 899 ]

scandal-riddled portfolio and in the face of utter

failure on each and every project that was designed by the progressive

policies of the New Democratic Party.

We know the northeast coal development is uneconomic without

domestic use in steel mills. It's absolute madness to go to Ottawa!

Ottawa is telling the Premier "no," and the Premier won't stand up and

say so. Oh, sure, they'll put out the $3 million and hold hands for

federal political reasons. They'll do a little burnblebee dance with

this Premier over here and this Minister of Economic Development, but

it's not going to proceed. It's not going to proceed because there

aren't businessmen over there to put it together. They don't know what

they're doing.

DREE says it is too costly at this time. A consortium has to raise

$200 million for every one million tons shipped every year. In other

words, that's the production cost, the capital cost, to develop those

supplies in the northeast. There has to be $200 million for every one

million tons that they want to ship. That's $2 billion for the

projected project in the northeast and an infrastructure cost to all

levels of government of over $1 billion. Now you can't have that kind

of an investment without the kind of economic situation that the leader

of the Liberal party (Mr. Gibson) said should exist. You just can't do

it. It's stupid economics, but stupid economics have characterized and

stalked this government for the past 14 months.

We had a project going. We were investigating the Hat Creek thermal

plant. I want to say that I am speaking for myself and not for the

entire party, when I say that Hat Creek thermal coal should proceed and

the fly-ash from the Hat Creek thermal coal will produce alumina and an

aluminum rolling-plant in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There's Mr. Chips laughing. He hasn't got a clue about what I am talking about.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You haven't got a clue about what I am talking

about. Do the feasibility studies and the engineering studies to use

that fly-ash for alumina...?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He says: "It's a pipe dream." They want

constructive suggestions. I'm saying stop, for heaven's sake! Do

nothing! Let the projects that the NDP put on the board proceed and

you'll provide the jobs for the future population of the province of

British Columbia. In their ignorance, Mr. Chairman, they are laughing

and chuckling as we're all on a roller coaster to disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't be serious.

MR. LAUK: I'm perfectly serious. The northeast coal

development cannot proceed without a steel mill to use the coal,

without developing other alternative uses for metallurgical coal.

Also, the Hat Creek coal thermal project should proceed. We need the

power. We can use the fly-ash for alumina, and we can establish an

aluminum rolling-plant in the area. Let's start thinking in terms of

adding value to our natural resources. Why do we have to have the

blinkers on? You're all a bunch of nervous Nellies over there.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, those are the positive suggestions that I had

to make. Do you see the reaction, Mr. Chairman, that I get from this

government? They complained that the opposition is a wrecking crew,

that we're always negative. In 14 months this government has been able

to destroy the major projects planned by the NDP government. One, the

northwest rail agreement, was destroyed on political whim and ego on

the part of the Premier of this province. What he'll come up with will

be something much less, I predict, than was already agreed to when he

put it on the shelf.

They destroyed the steel mill. The steel mill is connected to the

northeast coal development. This is the kind of insular, balkanized

thinking we have in that government.

They raised the ferry rates without knowing the economic impact on

Vancouver Island. They didn't even consider it. What kind of stupid

economic policy is that?

They raised the ICBC rates and the sales taxes without knowing that

it would take $700 million out of the retail sales markets of the

province of British Columbia. What kind of stupid economic policies are

those?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt you just long

enough to remind you that the present line of thought is taking you

into the conduct of the government,

whereas under this amendment — your

own amendment, by the way — the scope of debate is limited to this

minister's conduct. Not even whether or not he should or should not be

in the cabinet should be discussed — only his official

responsibilities. I know that you know this but I just wanted to remind

you.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for directing my attention to the gravamen of this vote.

[ Page 900 ]

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to point out that what this government

wants from the opposition is not positive suggestions. They destroyed

enough of our positive suggestions already — this minister in

particular. When he rose in his place the other day he didn't

deliberately mislead the House, but he said that the land in Prince

Rupert would cost $70,000 an acre to develop and that the current sales

price would be $50,000 for the acreage.

My information is that there are 70 to 90 acres under development on

the Heilbroner estate in Prince Rupert. They have already spent about

$2.5 million to $2.7 million, and it is expected another $300,000 will

be spent. You take your little average calculator, and that to me works

out to $42,000 to $43,000 an acre. The minister said $70,000 an acre.

What kind of nonsense is that? He stands up in his estimates and gives

these kings of incorrect figures.

I spoke before, Mr. Chairman, about conflict of interest — one of

the reasons that I have moved this motion of non-confidence in the

Minister of Economic Development, and his refusal to answer questions

in debate that ranged one entire week. There have been over 19 hours of

debate on this one minister's estimates, and he hasn't answered any

questions.

Well, let me quote to you from my book of selected unanswered

questions of the minister. Why has the minister failed to table the

results of studies into women's economic rights by the department? Why

has the minister not announced the specific market commitments he

claimed he obtained during his junket to Japan?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this list of questions...I think by the first two questions I recognize a list that is already in Hansard . Perhaps the minister could refer to the list rather than take the time of the committee.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. I'll refer to the list. The other questions I'll mention have not been mentioned.

Where will the $2 billion come from that I have just mentioned to

start up the northeast coal project? He hasn't answered that question,

Mr. Chairman.

Now that the Premier has returned from Ottawa.... I don't blame the

Premier for not taking the minister to Ottawa with him. It seems he

didn't get any results anyway, but taking the minister with him would

have ensured that he wouldn't have got any results. The minister's

whole conduct in office is so impaired that no one could take him

seriously in Ottawa.

Has he had a chance to talk with the Premier? I understand the

Premier had a press conference this morning, and he didn't stand up in

the House today to make any announcement. Does the Minister ofEconomic Development know about any such agreements?

The list goes on. The minister has not outlined any specific

emergency employment programmes for the 112,000 people unemployed, and

it's growing every day. It must be much higher by now. How is he going

to stop the exodus of companies from the province? There's another

question the minister hasn't answered.

And here is a very serious question that the minister did not even mention

at any time that he has been on his feet: is he satisfied that the British Columbia

Development Corporation board or any of its officials did not deal in shares

in Quasar, August or Cheyenne during the critical period of time between June

of last year and the announcement in December? I wish the minister would come

clean. Is he satisfied that no further officials of that Crown corporation are

impugned by that activity?

Will the minister table a survey and

summary of loans of business firms, at least until September 30, 1977?

I outlined to you conflict-of-interest situations involving Ragan

Construction. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in a good talk here

the other day, pointed out the very serious conflict-of-interest

situation. We have had the conflict-of-interest situation involving his

ministerial assistant, Mr. Weeks, and so on, indicating terrible

judgment on the minister's part.

We have seen the conflict-of-interest situation about the land in

Dawson Creek. It was authorized that the Development Corporation should

buy this land at cost and sell it to Dawson Creek at cost at no benefit

to the Development Corporation and fulfilling none of its goals, as

stated in the legislation or in its criteria. Well, the city of Dawson

Creek didn't take it up, but there was a conflict-of-interest situation

there that the minister should have understood and realized. His

political interference in decisions of the board with respect to loans

is proven by the board's approval of the Aspen Lok-tite loan. The

minister has not satisfactorily replied to those charges of political

interference.

More recently today, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised, and I will put

this in the form of a question to the minister: could he confirm the

report that a member of his departmental staff, Mr. Norman Worsley, who

is in charge of land acquisitions for the Department of Economic

Development, was seconded to Finning Tractor in the province of British

Columbia so that he could go up to Sparwood on behalf of Finning

Tractor to obtain highway access agreements from the Department of

Highways on behalf of Morris Young, the president of Finning Tractor

and also a member of the board of the British Columbia Development

Corporation? Can he confirm that Mr. Worsley, a civil servant, paid by

the province

[ Page 901 ]

of British Columbia, was used by a private company

by virtue of the fact that a member of the board of the BCDC was the

president of that private company? The minister must answer that charge.

We have an ever-growing list of conflicts of interest involving this

minister. Is it little wonder then that we raise this motion now,

reducing his salary, a form of non-confidence? As I indicated on Friday

and I say again today, Mr. Chairman, the opposition will immediately

withdraw this motion if the minister resigns his portfolio and lets

someone whose image and credibility is not impaired take this portfolio

in hand. Will the minister answer those questions?

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, I was waiting. I

thought the minister might at least want to comment on the member of

his staff who was apparently paid for by the government but who was

doing work for some private individual. I thought that at least would

get some response from him. However, it would seem that he is not

prepared at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I recall the second member for Vancouver South (Mr.

Strongman), I think it was, last week complaining that there had been

no constructive suggestions from the opposition side of the House. It's

perhaps unfortunate, or fortunate, depending on the point of view, that

that member did not have the advantage or the disadvantage of having

sat in this House from the fall of 1972 until the summer of 1975.

Certainly, during that period, the minister whose salary is now under

review was very good at being negative. He spoke in opposition at every

conceivable opportunity, and when it came to economic development, he

was kept very busy in opposing annually and regularly economic

proposals that were put before the House by the Minister of Economic

Development in those three years. In every session, there were positive

proposals for economic development put forth, and in every case that

particular member, Mr. Chairman, spoke at great length — without making

any sense — and voted against every positive proposal that was put

forward by the NDP minister responsible for economic development.

It's quite a different situation that we're dealing with now, Mr.

Chairman, and that's why this amendment has been moved. The present

Minister of Economic Development, having held that post for some 14

months, has, by his own admission, nothing positive to propose. It was

Friday of last week, I believe, when he almost pleaded With the House

to give him some constructive proposals and reacted almost

pathetically, Mr. Chairman, to the second member for Vancouver South,

who did make a positive suggestion. The minister made a great show of

marking that down. This was the first time that something positive had

been proposed to him by anyone else and, apparently, the first time

that he had ever had an opportunity of any kind to consider anything

positive, because he had never been able to think of anything positive

himself in his 14 months in that office.

A lot of things have gone wrong for that minister and for the

province of British Columbia since that minister has been Minister of

Economic Development. Right from the very beginning, things started

going wrong. After all of the talk about what was happening to mining

in the province under the NDP administration, it wasn't until the

Social Credit coalition was re-elected that things really started

falling apart. I think it was within six weeks of the election of that

administration that Granduc Mines announced another substantial layoff.

And it's still going on, Mr. Chairman. A report that I received just

today from the Mining Association of- British Columbia reports another

plant closed down, Noranda's Ocean Foundries plant in Surrey. Ocean

Foundries ran into market problems in 1976, Mr. Chairman. Nothing at

all to do with the election of the NDP government in 1972. One more

instance where this minister has apparently failed completely to

service economic development in the province.

Rising costs, combined with lower product prices, have, of course,

closed some mining operations or forced reduced shifts on others. It

goes on to talk about Canada's potential, and that is all that the

minister had to offer when he was being called upon to respond to some

of the remarks from the opposition side: "B.C. has a great potential.

Trust us. Give us another year and maybe something will start breaking

in our favour."

But in the meantime he, as Minister of Economic Development,

apparently has nothing at all to propose in a positive sense and, of

course, we can't criticize him because he's done nothing. There's

nothing positive that we can criticize. We can only criticize him for

his sins of omission and for the sins that he committed when he was

acting as a member of the opposition.

Granduc's announced closure was just one thing that happened since

that minister became Minister of Economic Development, about which he

showed such lack of interest that he did nothing. I recall Hickman Tye

closing down in this very city. It was a business that had been in

operation for over 100 years, and I don't recall the Minister of

Economic Development even saying a word about it, let alone doing

anything about it.

About a week ago, he met with different people to talk about Oakland

Industries, here in this same city of Victoria. He did report to us

that he met with them briefly one morning. He did report to us another

meeting going on that afternoon, and that he might have something to

say the next day. He did report the next day that there were further

meetings

[ Page 902 ]

going on and he was optimistic — or at least

hopeful — that something might come out of it. But, Mr. Chairman,

perhaps I was out, but I've heard nothing since. I'm waiting to hear

from the minister what is happening on Oakland Industries. If he's

going to be doing so little about something that's happening right now

and that is so important in this city, while his estimates are under

consideration, and doing so little when he's under pressure himself in

the House and outside of the House, then, Mr. Chairman, we certainly

have a very grave concern that when he is out from under the pressure

of getting his salary through the House he will do absolutely nothing.

We'd like to have some assurances something is going on. What about

meetings? Are any further meetings going on? Does he have anything else

at all to tell us about the rest of the meetings that have been going

on with respect to Oakland Industries? It's an old question, but it's

supposed to be an ongoing thing and there should be something new to

report by this time.

Very early in this debate on this particular vote, the minister

spoke about a trip to Japan. He was very optimistic about the sale of

agricultural products to Japan, but he gave no details. What

agricultural products are to be sold? What is his optimism based on —

some casual conversations he had with somebody in a restaurant in

Japan? Does he have anything concrete to tell us, anything that will

encourage people involved in the agricultural industry in the province

of British Columbia that he really has some potential market there,

that there have been some serious discussions with somebody in Japan

who is interested in buying agricultural products from the province of

British Columbia?

Let's have some details, Mr. Chairman. He certainly got them when he

was on the opposition side of the House. He would put these questions

to the minister of the day and he would get responses where responses

were available. If there wasn't any information, he was told so. But

now, Mr. Chairman, we're being told nothing. He just sits there and

waits, hoping to wait us out. What about some details on that proposed

sale of agricultural products to Japan?

What about the Prince Rupert pulp mill situation? What did the

minister responsible for economic development do when those people were

laid off in spite of the fact that they had assurances from several

Social Credit spokesmen that this would never happen? Once it did

happen, there was the scurrying around: "Button, button, who's got the

button?" Who was it who said they never would be laid off? Everybody

disclaimed the responsibility and said it was somebody else's problem,

but in the end, Mr. Chairman, it came down to the Minister of Economic

Development. We have one more closure, or partial closure, and the

Minister of Economic Development apparently is not particularly

interested, not concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I recall to you that when the NDP were in government,

there were positive proposals coming forward regularly. This member

opposed them regularly at great length without making any sense, but he

has done nothing about those institutions and those proposals that were

put into effect and that became very good proposals for the province of

British Columbia, but that he felt could be so much better or without

which the province would be better off. Yet the Minister of Economic

Development has had little to say about any of these industries since.

What about BCPC, which by this date must have contributed between

$350 million and $400 million to the people of British Columbia? The

present Minister of Economic Development spoke at great length and very

often against this proposal. He voted against it, but has said nothing

about it since. Mr. Chairman, now that he is the minister responsible

for economic development, is he satisfied with BCPC all of a sudden?

Does he think it's a great thing now, or does he have some suggestions

for changing it now so that it will better serve the interests of the

people of British Columbia?

What about Canadian Cellulose, Mr. Chairman? I've already mentioned

the layoff at Prince Rupert. You'll recall that when it became 79 per

cent owned by the people of British Columbia, it was done to save jobs.

The government of that day reacted positively to save jobs. I can't

recall one instance where the present Minister of Economic Development

has recommended anything to his government, or to the Legislature, or

to the people of British Columbia, that would save one single job, let

alone 1,000 jobs — not one proposal. He has been delinquent in his

responsibility; he has abdicated his responsibility to the people of

this province. Yet he sits there hoping that somehow his salary will be

voted for or that this amendment will be turned down.

What about Canadian Cellulose? Is the minister satisfied with what's

going on there? Does he have any changes in mind for improving that?

Does he have any changes in mind that will increase the job

opportunities in the northwest of the province? There certainly is a

need for that kind of action. What is this minister thinking about?

What is he doing about it? It was a very constructive, positive

proposal put before the Legislature, and it was opposed violently by

that member at great length and often. We've heard nothing, not a word,

about it since.

Mr. Chairman, there's one in his own riding, and we've heard nothing

about this either — South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. I understand.... I'm

sorry, I don't understand in this case because I don't know, but I

would like to know whether or not the minister or his department is

represented on the board of directors for South Peace Dehy. I

understand it is in

[ Page 903 ]

receivership. Quite apart from the fact that he is

the MLA for that area, what involvement has he taken in the affairs of

this company as Minister of Economic Development? Has he shown any

interest in it?

It would seem that this is one year when that company could have

been expected to do very well, a year when there were tremendous forage

crop failures in Europe because of the kind of summer weather that they

had in 1976 — the sort of winter weather that we're having right now,

very dry. It would have seemed that it would have been an excellent

opportunity for South Peace Dehy to have found new markets, to have

sold all of its product. Yet in the last few months this was the time

that it went into receivership. Now what is the story behind that? This

House certainly heard a great deal about South Peace Dehy Products Ltd.

I believe that member, as the MLA for that area.... I think that's the

one constructive proposal he's supported, but nothing about it since.

Mr. Chairman, before I would vote for his salary, or before I

decline from voting against an amendment to reduce his salary, I'd like

to have a report from the minister as to just what happened with South

Peace Dehy Products Ltd., which he was obligated, or somebody was

obligated, to put into receivership. He didn't give it the kind of

support it needed, apparently, to get it going.

I think this was a very worthwhile endeavour. Get a new industry

established in an area that needed it; get forage crop growing in areas

where previously they had been concentrating on grain too much to a

great degree. We wanted to encourage them to move into forage, and the

forage plant seemed to be a way of doing that. Let's have something

from the minister to tell us just what went wrong with South Peace Dehy.

I'd like to ask him a lot of questions about Swan Valley, but he's

said nothing about it and I'd prefer to wait. I'm not sure what kind of

negotiations are going on. If he cares to talk about it publicly some

time, Mr. Chairman, I'll be only too happy to respond. In the meantime,

I'm quite prepared to wait until the government wants to make this a

public discussion. I recognize that the Premier would also be prepared

to get into that public discussion, and that's fine, Mr. Chairman. I'll

be quite prepared to do that when the time comes. But in the meantime,

if the minister has anything he can tell us about it, I'd like to hear

it.

Mr. Chairman, what's happening with Ocean Falls? I hear some

recognition from the back on Ocean Falls. Again, this was a move that

the government of the day undertook to save employment, to save a town,

to save social capital — there was a tremendous amount of money

invested in that plant. That member opposes it. He violently,

vigorously challenged contracts for selling the product, did everything

he could to kill that organization in the eyes of the public and in the

eyes of the business world — of the whole world. Now, Mr. Chairman,

we've heard nothing from him about Ocean Falls. Is he, as Minister of

Economic Development, prepared to invest further in Ocean Falls, to

grant further financing so that it can do the necessary expansion so

that it will be more of a moneymaker than it has been in the most

recent financial statement we've seen? What is he doing as the Minister

of Economic Development? Is he going to bring in these kinds of

recommendations? What is he doing, Mr. Chairman? Until we hear

something positive from him, until he has some ideas, until he can

answer some of the questions we're putting before him, how can we do

otherwise than vote for this amendment?

The Squamish car plant: what are we hearing about that, Mr.

Chairman? Here he has a responsibility not only as the Minister of

Economic Development, but as a director of the railroad. There has been

a lot of talk about the Squamish car plant and the opportunities that

plant had for selling its products. I don't know what's happening

there. I've heard nothing from this minister. I do have a newspaper

story here. It's the Province ,

dated May 4, 1976, and of course it's quoting an inter-view with Lloyd

Bingham, general manager of BCR's car-building subsidiary, Railwest

Manufacturing Co., talking about the potential of that plant:

"One possibility is that a South American country may

place an order for knocked-down parts for railway vehicles. Second, a

sales opening may also develop in Mexico which, though largely

self-sufficient in rolling stock, does need specialty cars from abroad.

Third, at home Railwest is looking to build coal cars if any major mine

to produce export fuel is opened on or near the BCR system."

Is Railwest doing anything about these coal cars? The minister is

talking a lot about coal. What's going on? Railwest designers are

looking at all-steel cars as opposed to aluminum alloy. What's

happening there? I think, Mr. Chairman, there's one particularly

interesting paragraph in this write-up talking about the productivity,

and this minister, you'll recall, has spoken on several occasions about

the relative lack of productivity of B.C. workers. This story reads as

follows:

"During a selling trip abroad, Bingham toured one

rolling-stock plant where the output rate per man was only one-third of

the Squamish plant. 'When I told them what we were doing, they would

not believe me.'"

It's a new plant, Mr. Chairman, well built, well conceived. It had

opportunities, it would seem to me, to do something in the way of

economic development for the province of British Columbia. But what's

happened? Has this minister abandoned it? Is he just

[ Page 904 ]

going to let it sit there, let it exist? Is he

going to close it down or is he going to expand it? Is he going to help

it go aggressively after more markets that would contribute something

to the economic development of the province of British Columbia? What

is he going to do positively about anything?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

If I could just be negative for a moment — and we're getting these

same stories I suppose, from all over the province, but certainly

here's one paper that has not been noted for being particularly

friendly to the MLA for Nanaimo — there are pictures of half a dozen

stores on the main street of town that are closed. This is not dated

1973,1974 or 1975. This is dated January 20,1977, after this government

had been in office for over 13 months. No, not a word from the Minister

of Economic Development. Some of the stores closed down, others had

moved, but the premises are empty. This kind of thing is going on all

over the province — it's much worse in most other communities than it

is in Nanaimo — but it's the first time that I can recall this kind of

a story coming from the hub city, Nanaimo. Now that's going on all over

the province and there's not one positive suggestion from the Minister

of Economic Development. He was very good for three or so years at

attacking everything positive proposed by the NDP, but apparently a

complete failure at coming out with one single positive proposal on

behalf of his own government.

I'd like to ask him about another one in my own riding. It was one

that was announced, I think something like a year ago, by the hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) that said the Duke Point

project was ready to go ahead. I believe that was over a year ago. Mr.

Chairman, I've heard nothing since, other than from local people

anxious that it go ahead. It seems nothing is really happening. Now

what is the minister doing about the Duke Point proposal — the back-up

land at Harmac that was going to be used for industrial development? I

would like to have some response from him on that particular question

as well.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned several

positive proposals, contrary to what was stated by the second member

for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman), that were being activated under

the NDP government that have apparently been dropped since. As the

first member for Vancouver Centre said, if this government under this

Minister of Economic Development were simply to have carried on with

the projects that were being actively pushed under the NDP

administration, it would have kept him busy — because it's not too hard

to keep him busy, Mr. Chairman — just working on the projects on which

we were working. And he could have done much for the economic

development of the province had he not been content to sit back in his

chair and smile or, on occasion, to stand up and make a speech that had

nothing at all to do with the question under consideration.

There has been mention of the steel mill. I had opportunity, Mr.

Chairman, to visit the steel mill at Fukuyama where I met the manager

of that plant and the man who said he would be the manager of one to be

constructed in the province of British Columbia. No final decision had

been made as to whether it would be done or where it would be done. But

I notice in the minister's report, the Department of Economic

Development — the one that was tabled in the House recently — on two

pages there is mention of this steel plant. Under special projects

division it speaks about phase two of the B.C.-NKK joint study. Under

the provincial economist

section of this report — "A member of the

executive committee of the B.C.-NKK feasibility study...the committee

co-ordinated the efforts of various departments," and so on. So

obviously something was going on in this department on this steel mill.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to visit that mill. I

met the man who was the general manager of it; I met the three

managers. It was rather revealing to me that of the three there was one

general manager who was in charge of the whole project; there was

another whose total responsibility was protection of the environment.

This is one of the top three men in that organization, an organization

that produces eight million tons of steel a year. One of the top three

men had as his complete and total and only responsibility the

protection of the environment. They told me quite proudly of the fact

that 96 per cent of the fresh water going through that mill was

recycled — used over and over. They told me even more proudly that the

mill currently under construction in Tokyo was going to be recycling 99

per cent of the water, and they said that's the kind of plant they were

talking about for the province of British Columbia.

They showed me their housing projects and asked me whether or not

this type of housing would be acceptable in the province of British

Columbia for the workers that would be working in that steel mill. And

from what I saw, Mr. Chairman, it was quite acceptable for the kind of

plant, for the kind of situation it was, and would be acceptable in the

province of British Columbia from what I saw — well built, well

designed. The workers were very productive. There were the same kinds

of signs up about accident-free days; they were very concerned about

the protection and the comfort of the employees.

1 had an opportunity to ask him some questions. I asked: "Why do you

want to come to the province of British Columbia? You have one steel

mill here; you

[ Page 905 ]

have others in Japan; you're building a new one in

Tokyo. Why come to British Columbia?" And I was told — he was speaking

in Japanese and it came through an interpreter — that their first

choice, if they were building another mill, would be in Japan because

they have a large work force there, and the most important thing is

labour. But they have to bring everything into Japan, and the possible

sites for building future steel mills are limited in Japan. So they

were looking to build one somewhere else in the world that would give

them better opportunities to tap world markets for their product. "Our

second choice," he said, "would be Brazil because that's where the iron

ore is coming from. We can get the workers there; we could bring the

coal there; the iron ore is there. That would be our second choice of a

place to build. But we're coming to the last choice; we're coming to

B.C. And we'll come to B.C. not because we want to go to B.C., but we

recognize in the province of British Columbia we're dealing with a

in the value-added factor."

He knew that the government in the province of British Columbia at

that time was not anxious simply to sell its coal to get rid of it. It

wanted to use its resources in the province of British Columbia to

create job opportunities and economic opportunities in the province of

British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, this minister apparently abandons all those plans, goes off to

Japan and says: "We don't want you here. Please come in and take our

coal. We'll build roads, we'll build railroads, we'll build ports;

we'll do everything we can to make it possible for you to come in and take

our coal. If you need any more money, let us know; we'll help you pay that

too. No increase in royalty." Remember the increase in royalty that was

proposed? That's not under this minister, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman.

They now are dealing with a government that apparently does not

believe in economic opportunities in the province of British Columbia

and apparently never heard of the value-added factor for our coal. When

they think about coal development, all they can talk about is: how can

we get rid of our coal? The Japanese knew that when we were in office

they were dealing With a government that wanted to create job

opportunities and economic opportunities in B.C.

Mr. Chairman, I suggested to him that it was possible the NDP might not always

be the government in the province of British Columbia. Of course, that had to

go through the interpreter as well. And he recognized that as well, but he said:

"We're talking about today; we have to deal with the situation as it

is today. If the situation changes tomorrow, then we'll deal with that situation."

Well, the situation did change. They now have a government that

obviously doesn't believe in creating job and economic opportunities in

B.C. and they are in a much better bargaining position because they

know that to create any opportunities here, this government is anxious

to get rid of the coal. They are in an extremely good bargaining

position now — not so good before, but very good as long as this

"say-nothing, do-nothing" minister sits in that chair over there and

does nothing for the province of British Columbia.

What about the copper smelter? The hon. first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked that question, but got no response. The oil

refinery? Absolutely no response from that minister.

Mr. Chairman, there were many positive proposals coming forward on a

regular basis when the NDP was the government in this province. That

member took it upon himself to lead the attack against every one of

those positive proposals. He had done nothing at all about any of the

positive things that were accomplished and rolling by the time he took

office, and the ones that were still on the drawing boards, were still

being planned, or were still being worked on, he has apparently

abandoned completely. He has sat and fiddled while the economy of B.C.

has gone downhill. He has done nothing constructive to maintain job

opportunities or to build economic opportunities in the province.

Mr. Chairman, as a Minister of Economic Development for the province

of British Columbia, he has been a complete failure. We can do little

else than vote for this amendment to reduce his salary, unless the

government were to take our advice to simply replace him and put

someone in who is genuinely interested in building up the province of

British Columbia. That is what we are here for, Mr. Chairman. That's

why we are all here. We want to do something for B.C. And the best

thing that can be done for B.C. right now, short of having an election

and getting rid of all of them, is to get rid of that particular

Minister of Economic Development and put someone in who truly is

interested in economic development — not in Japan, not in the States,

not in Europe or Brazil — but here in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, in all conscience, as members of the Legislature in the

province of British Columbia, we have no choice but to vote for this

amendment.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I rise to

support this amendment. My remarks are going to be pretty well confined

to what is happening or not happening relative to this ministry in my

own riding and, by association, in another part of the province that

seems to be going through the same experience.

Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Economic

[ Page 906 ]

Development produced a month or so ago two reports

that had originally been commissioned by the former government back in

1973 and had been promised in three years. It took three and a half

years to prepare these reports by the Interim Planning Agreement staff,

more frequently known as IPA. These reports — one for the Kootenays and

one called "The Central Report," which refers essentially to the

central interior, the Cariboo-Prince George area — were billed as the

general outline blueprint of options for these regions in terms of

dealing with the federal agencies to get some assistance for British

Columbia. This assistance had been lacking under the last two

governments, considering what had been available to other regions of

Canada. Even wealthy provinces such as Ontario had benefited

substantially by DREE funds, by ARDA funds and by funds from other

federal agencies who, for one reason or another, had not been putting

money into British Columbia. The excuse that Ottawa always gave was:

"Well, you're not playing the game by our rules. You're not applying in

the right way." The idea of the IPA studies was that they would show a

series of local options under which the province could go in support of

local municipal councils and local industry, and tap into some of these

federal funds for assistance, with community infrastructure rather than

simply the handouts to industry that had characterized these kinds of

programmes in the past — these deliberate boondoggles which I don't

believe anyone on either side of the House supports. I have heard

spokesmen for the government repeatedly say that they don't want to see

handouts in industry, they don't want lame duck industries and those

that can't stand up on their own feet.

So it was intended to go the other way, to try and attract senior

government money into land development, into servicing land, industrial

land, residential land, and sewage and water systems which, we all

know, are fantastically expensive. These reports had not been out very

long, Mr. Chairman, and the various major industries, and municipal

councils and regional districts have only done a cursory investigation

up to this point. But I've had conversations with many of these people

and there is a sameness about the comments that they make. One of the

things they say is: "Well, how much did it cost? We know we didn't have

any input. There was no dialogue from us. What about all this factual

misinformation in there, this poor editing?"

What about statements like a certain mine having a 10-year life

expectancy, a 10-year ore supply, when the company tells me: "Hey, but

it's only a year and a half that we have; we told him that, but they

still put 10 years in there"?

What about the lack of input by interested environmental groups

which may have some concern about whether or not there's a particular

plant, or a particular mine, or a particular open-pit operation which

may be proposed? They have a right to their day in court; they have a

right to dialogue.

Many people in this province and elsewhere are constantly

complaining that developments take place.... They are simply laid on

them and there is no discussion ahead of time, no ability to make their

position known because it's a fait accompli when it's finally delivered

to them. To my knowledge nobody got together with consultants, which is

an interesting thing, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the number of

consulting reports which went into the central report, but in the

Kootenay report there are no fewer than 12 consulting reports.

I would like the minister to tell us if he can hear me, sitting over

there in the corner. I didn't mean to frighten you, Mr. Minister. I'm

sure you are listening anyway.

Perhaps we could find out what these reports cost. There are 12 of

them. In my experience, consulting reports can run anywhere from $

50,000 to $100,000. I think we're looking at possibly $400,000 to

$500,000 minimum shared equally by the federal and provincial

taxpayers. What have we got for our money when the people at the local

level who have to try and deal with these things are saying: "Gee,

there's nothing positive in those reports, and nothing really very

negative either. They are kind of nothing reports, gathering dust

already. There are no enquiries from private sectors, and no business

or industry interested in the reports." Mr. Chairman, these are the

kinds of comments which have come to me from officials in both the

private and the public sectors in these two regions, officials who have

no reason to play politics with me, because in some cases, particularly

with the central interior people, they had no idea who I even was. I

got their phone numbers out of directory assistance, and simply called

planning departments and public relations offices.

There are absolutely no positive things recommended for either

region, except that there was a bit of disconcerting tendency on

occasion to appear to play one community off against another, which I

submit is a very bad thing for government to do, because government

reports and statements in them have a way of coming back to haunt local

officials and governments. Government reports, particularly reports of

the Department of Economic Development still tend, even with this

government in office, to have a little bit of prestige. They're

prestigious. People consult them as apparently authoritative. If there

is bad information contained in there, or if there are apparent

inconsistencies and poor editing, this tends to reflect on that region

and those communities for absolutely years to come.

One major criticism was that the reports were too general. There was

nothing clear on what was meant on the options; indeed, the options

weren't even

[ Page 907 ]

spelled out. There was no growth forecast for

industry. That was rather interesting. We've heard the government say

that there were great plans for things, but there was no growth

forecast for industry until after 1980. As we all know, anything could

happen after 1980. Most people are interested in what they're going to

do next year, or maybe even next week. They're wondering whether they

can support themselves or whether they can stay in business.

When we talk about lack of credibility I notice an item in the

central report that said there was a possibility, of two thermal pulp

mills in the Cariboo–Prince George area. In a call to the Forest

Service, I was told that the Prince George forest district was already

97 per cent committed. Businessmen and chambers of commerce in that

region are wondering where that kind of timber would come from.

Agriculture is virtually written off in both reports. I wonder, Mr.

Chairman, how the stockmen's associations in the Cariboo feel about

that. Certainly, the dairymen in my riding were very disconcerted when

they saw that. The people who were attempting to establish a poultry

industry and an egg classification plant in the Kootenays weren't very

happy to hear about that either. We find that existing agricultural

developments are almost written off in a government report that's

supposed to talk about the options for improvement and diversification.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has talked recently

about great growth that she hopes to see in the tourist industry in

British Columbia. Yet both reports give a static — tourist industry

outlook for these two major interior regions.

However, one can say; "Oh, these are just reports, and, of course,

the real world out there is where it's going on. We don't need to worry

about what some bureaucrat or technocrat writes in a report." That may

be true in some cases, Mr. Chairman, but we see conclusion after

conclusion in these reports and absolutely no information or

explanation as to how these conclusions were arrived at. So there's

absolutely no way of refuting or tackling these things except to write

off the whole report.

My other major complaint about these consulting reports is that they

are suffering from what could best be described as a kind of benign

secrecy. I don't have any knowledge of the government or the department

denying anyone access to these reports. It's just that someone has to

come 500 or 600 miles, if they're a municipal planner or an alderman or

a mayor, and has to know that you would go to the fourth floor of the

Toronto-Dominion Bank building on Douglas Street in Victoria. If you

went there and met the right people and asked the right questions, I'm

sure they would let you see all these piles and piles of consulting

reports.

But I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what possible value these things are to

the people in the region if the interested private citizens and the

interested public people have to make that tremendous amount of effort.

It kind of reminds me of the very adequate B.C. Hydro power report done

by the Shrum commission in 1972, which is still the major blueprint for

power development in British Columbia. I think there was a public

document available to everybody, except I think there were only six or

seven copies printed. One had to be very lucky, indeed, to get a hold

of one of those copies.

I'm asking the Minister, Mr. Chairman, not only about the cost of

these reports but if the government intends to talk to the Department

of Regional Economic Expansion and RDIA. How much money do these

departments have? Last year and the year before they didn't seem to

have any money for British Columbia. I gather that their budgets have

been cut or are going to be cut. As one senior civil servant commented

to me: "When you talk to DREE, you realize after a few minutes that

they're talking about everybody else's money. They're talking about

CMHC money; they're talking about various federal funding schemes which

have been in effect for a long time. They're not talking about any new

money; they're just talking about moving around existing programmes

that have been in effect for years and years."

I would like the minister to tell us — or perhaps the Premier could

— in the discussions with the federal people, how much money there is

available for British Columbia. Is there any available and how will it

be spent, or will it be spent?

And I would also like to know if the local authorities will be

consulted. I don't expect, nor does anybody reasonably think, that a

provincial or federal government is going to take orders from the local

level, because the ultimate responsibility lies with the provincial

government. But I do not think — and I hope the government would agree

— that there should be an ongoing dialogue not just with municipal and

regional district offices, but with major industries and with

interested private groups, such as I mentioned earlier — environment

groups which have a public interest in this sort of thing and deserve

to be heard by people who are making major economic decisions.

If there is going to be any of this federal-provincial cost-sharing,

I don't want a series of useless boondoggles of the kinds of things we

have seen in other parts of Canada under some of these programmes.

Where there was no local input, the project benefited no one;it did not

improve the quality of life in a local area; it did not lower land

costs; it really did nothing that anybody really wanted because there

had been no input, because different areas, different towns, different

regions all have different needs.

In my area — and I know it's true in other parts of

[ Page 908 ]

the province as well — serviced land is a major

item — serviced land for homes, serviced land for commercial

developments and serviced land for industrial development.

What about bulk water systems, Mr. Minister? We see right here on

the Saanich Peninsula a major water shortage developing. What about

sewage systems? I see from the nine-month economic review — I'm glad to

see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in the House —

that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is overspent already. I suspect

it's largely due to overspending on sewage systems and water systems

where the government is virtually locked in to paying 75 per cent of

the capital cost over three mills. We're talking about municipal

programmes which are financed over 20 years. These costs are not going

to go down; they're going to go up each and every year.

I certainly think that the federal government should be matching the

provincial funds not just on new projects, Mr. Chairman, but on all the

existing ones. At present, as I said, there is a 75-25 split after

three mills. I believe that the federal government should be coming in

for 43 per cent on all these programmes. That would reduce the

provincial commitment to 43 per cent and the local commitment to 14 per

cent. This money is not only needed right now, it's needed for future

programmes, and I think Ottawa should have been participating all along.

I gathered from his press report that when the Premier went to

Ottawa, he was greeted very kindly and they were very nice to him, but

they didn't give him anything; they just....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are discussing the salary, on a

motion, of the Minister of Economic Development. We seem to be skipping

around the various ministries. Would you kindly get back to the motion,

please?

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about this

minister's office and this minister's action, or inaction rather, with

regard to dealing — because it's his responsibility — with the federal

Department of Regional Economic Expansion and in dealing with RDIA and

the IPA studies. I'm relating the need for that kind of involvement in

that kind of funding assistance, which has not been forthcoming — nor

has there been any indication it is forthcoming — to why it is so

valuable to each and every community in this province.

I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that if you'll allow me — and I

hope you won't think that I was skipping around — I would have thought

that the minister would have been doing this kind of negotiating.

Perhaps the Premier has decided to do it for him, whether that means

the Premier doesn't have faith in him or whether he felt he was too

busy here in Victoria. I would hope that the Premier, when he was in

Ottawa, had time to take time out from his skating on the Rideau Canal

to drop in and discuss some of these things with the federal people.

If the Liberal Party is looking for votes in British Columbia, I

think one of the things they could do is cooperate with the provincial

Ministry of Economic Development and the member for South Peace River

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) in attempting to meet some kind of accommodation to

fund infrastructure programmes. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the

government across the way, and spokesmen on this side of the House as

well, have constantly said over the last few years that we're not

interested in handouts to industry and that we want to see the kind of

cost sharing that goes into improving a community's infrastructure,

improving its power supplies, improving its sewerage systems, improving

its water systems and reducing the cost of land in British Columbia.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think that one of our economic

problems in British Columbia is that serviced land is too expensive.

There is a free market in serviced land, and there is very little of

it. When you have a high demand and a low supply, you have very high

costs for housing, very high costs for industry to locate, very high

costs for commercial development; and that in turn leads to higher

income expectations and all-round higher costs for prospective industry

or industry which is here right now. Hence, it impairs its ability to

compete on international markets. That's why it's so important that

this minister get on with the job of getting some kind of financial

assistance out of the federal government.

As I say, I propose that it be a matching amount for municipal

infrastructure programmes which are already in effect in British

Columbia. That would go to reducing land costs, reducing operating

costs, reducing the taxation load at the local property level, which

applies to industry, commercial and farmland as well as residential

property, and thereby reducing, the costs of operation of industry in

British Columbia and allowing them to put more capital into expansion,

more money into seeking new markets, more money into providing more

jobs which, in turn, would have a cumulative effect of reducing

unemployment and increasing revenues to the government.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by noting once again that these

reports.... Could the minister possibly enlighten us as to how much

they did cost? They were jointly funded, I gather — 50 per cent federal

and 50 per cent provincial. It is eminently clear at this point that

this is money that has been very badly spent. But perhaps worse than

the fact that the reports are really of no use — they don't tell anyone

anything they didn't know already — has

[ Page 909 ]

been the time, Mr. Chairman, that has been spent

while these communities and these regional districts and these

industries waited, hoping to see some leadership from the government,

to see some initiative and to see something which could be done which

could be taken as a series of options and as a blueprint in dealing

with the federal government.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: No, I'm talking about your government, Mr.

Minister. I'm talking about your government. We don't want to see the

kind of boondoggles.... I suppose if I mention the Fort Nelson water

agreement, Mr. Chairman, we're going to hear that that was signed by

the previous government. It's true that it was, in September, 1975, but

it didn't get started until last year. I know something about the

problems in that mainly because not only did your department not even

consult with the local people, but you didn't consult with other

departments. There were mistakes made on that project which if you had

consulted with Municipal Affairs you could have avoided or if you had

consulted with Water Resources you could have avoided.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you could have.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, they would have been but you didn't start

that programme until January, February, March of last year — three or

four months after you'd been in office. Even though the basic financial

and business agreement was signed under the previous government, I

wonder whether that agreement ever would have been signed, Mr.

Chairman, by that minister had they been in office at the time the

problem arose. However, the fact is that that kind of an infrastructure

agreement should be applied equally in the Saanich Peninsula, to a bulk

water system in the lower Columbia Valley, to all the major sewerage

and water projects which are either underway or badly needed in British

Columbia if we're ever going to get the cost of land and the cost of

doing business in British Columbia down to a level that we can make

ourselves competitive on international markets and continue to supply

ourselves with business opportunities. As has been said before, and I

reiterate, you have to have business opportunities, Mr. Minister,

before you can have job opportunities, and you can't keep creaming the

public in taxes without putting something in. And I believe now is the

time that your department could be making some very positive steps in

dealing with the federal government to provide all kinds of lower costs

in British Columbia which would in turn lead to new jobs, new plants

and even service employment opportunities.

MR. WALLACE: This secondary debate obviously calls for

members of the opposition to document why this is a reasonable

amendment. I would think that if for no other reason at all, it is a

reasonable amendment on the basis that this government, and

particularly this minister, made commitments to get the economy rolling.

The record