1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2263 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Appointment of Industrial Inquiry Commission to investigate RNABC-BCHA dispute. Hon. Mr. King — 2263

Routine proceedings

Riding Trails Designation Act (Bill 107). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 2263

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce estimates On vote 125.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2263

Mr. Chabot — 2265

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2269

Mr. Chabot — 2272

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2272

Mr. Gibson — 2272

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2276

Mr. Gardom — 2279

Mr. Steves — 2280

Mr. Bennett — 2283

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2285

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2289

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2289

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, a number of

times during the session, in the last few days, questions have been

raised regarding the possibility of a strike by the B.C. Registered

Nurses Association.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister is wishing to make a statement to the House on that matter?

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: I felt the House would be interested in

knowing that an agreement was signed this morning in my office

appointing an Industrial Inquiry Commission to investigate into the

dispute between the Registered Nurses Association and the Hospitals

Association. At that time I made a very, very strong recommendation to

the parties that the findings of the inquiry commission be accepted as

binding. I think it's a credit to the responsibility of both groups

that they have, in fact, agreed to accept as binding the award of the

Industrial Inquiry Commission which will be in the person of Mr. Clive

McKee.

I think the House should acknowledge the responsibility of people

involved in collective bargaining in a very, very difficult and

delicate industry. I think it's a credit to their responsibility and to

the success of the collective bargaining system that we have an

agreement to resolve the dispute in this fashion.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would like to

draw to the Members' attention the presence in the galleries this

morning of students from Reynolds Senior Secondary School in Saanich,

accompanied by Mrs. Plecas, Mrs. Hadfield and Mrs. Walton. Would the

House welcome them please?

Introduction of bills.

RIDING TRAILS DESIGNATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 107, Riding Trails Designation Act ,

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the

House to table a document entitled "Submission by Canada, regarding the

Skagit Valley, to the Federal Power Commission," dated March 15, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: Was this in reference to some speech that you made in the House?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this document,

which has recently come to my attention, will be of value in regard to

the reply to the question of the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) indicating that the provincial

government would be giving a different submission to the Federal Power

Commission. I think this document should be available for all Members

of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, of course, would require leave of the House unanimously.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Liden from the Special Committee on Assessment Procedures

presented the committee's first report which was taken as read and

received.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE

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

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

Thank you for your kind support. I expect the Hon. Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot), who is the industrial development critic of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition, will stand up and suggest this vote be

passed without any further debate, after my opening comments, as a

tremendous vote of confidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: We accept your resignation. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: I understand that you are very anxious to get Waldo Skillings off the UIC rolls. (Laughter.)

I have a brief three-hour opening address, Mr. Chairman; I've tried

to condense it. I have made an attempt since my appointment to expand

the staff in the direction of the Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce. As it was before,

[ Page 2264 ]

as most of you know, it was a department that dealt

mainly with economic statistics, and had a small but hard-working

little group of people doing that job.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: As I recall, some years ago the then First

Member for Vancouver Centre, Herb Capozzi, once threw an expletive

across to the then Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce, Waldo Skillings. He said, "Waldo, get off your fat stats."

Well, I took him seriously when I was appointed and we've expanded

the budget modestly — we don't need to spend money unless it's

absolutely necessary — a modest increase in budget to expand the staff

to include not only those people who will gather and disseminate

statistics about the economy of this dynamic and progressive province

but also to give the government and the business community a clearer

direction of where the economy might go — more information in terms of

economic planning, not only from a local point of view and a

statistical point of view but from the point of view of overseas trade,

monetary financial analysis, economic planning for regional areas,

relation to manpower and cooperation with other departments of

government.

There's a tremendous opportunity for this government to carry on

that kind of role — not just a monitoring role, but a more positive,

active role. From statistics to action, static to active is what I've

attempted to do in the past few months that I've been in office in this

portfolio.

The expanded operations include an expanded Vancouver office, Mr.

Chairman. We're there providing assistance to the business community in

the lower mainland and elsewhere. This Vancouver office is primarily

responsible, through our operations side of the department, for trade

missions, community business contacts, information, preliminary

analysis of marketing and management of various business operations

that may come to us for such assistance.

The British Columbia Development Corporation has a board of

directors and a general manager and is now hiring staff. It soon will

conduct, I'm instructed by the board, a programme of industrial land

banking. Again, it's modest, not extensive, but key to the regional

areas of this province, assisting the municipalities and regional

districts in their industrial land problems towards development of

industry in those areas.

It is a policy of this government to decentralize as much as is

democratically and humanly possible industrial development in this

province to the regional areas. The Development Corporation must be

looked upon, Mr. Chairman, with some degree of caution. We can't look

upon the Development Corporation as being the answer to all small

business worries and all the worries of regional areas.

I don't know whether all of you got my reading list. I think the

Second Member for West Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) probably got

my reading list. On my reading list were several books, including Forced Growth

by Phillip Mathias. That's a good book for you to read so that you can

understand the problems the Development Corporation might have in the

next two or three years, and how we in British Columbia have an

opportunity to change the direction of development corporations as they

have shown themselves across the country. I know you're interested in a

rational examination of this problem.

The new department, Mr. Chairman, as I have said, will be responsive

to changing local, national and world conditions. We are becoming more

responsive and aware of the western region — the three western

provinces other than British Columbia. The four provinces together are

making inroads in the past several months that are quite exciting.

Deputy Ministers and Ministers of trade and industry for the four

western provinces are meeting and discussing what we all have in

common, what our dissimilarities are in terms of what raw materials

resources we have, in what ways we can cooperate in terms of the

development of those resources and, more importantly, the development

of an industrial base for western Canada.

As I said in my speech in the budget debate, which all of you, I

know, reread last night before this morning, that really the 1980s and

the 1970s and the rest of this century belong to western Canada. The

tremendous opportunity to economic development is with these provinces.

The key, really, is the Pacific Rim and therefore British Columbia. We

cannot succeed on our own particularly. We can do a good job; we can

grow. But the real opportunity and the real challenge is cooperation

between the four western provinces.

The other day one of the Hon. Members in the opposition (Mr. Chabot)

questioned me on a steel plant and the expansion of steel production in

Saskatchewan. We have some criticisms of the way that's going, but I

assure you again that we should congratulate Saskatchewan and the

western provinces for their bold moves and the federal government for

its assistance to them in developing this kind of an industry. It can

only assist British Columbia and can only help us. Perhaps we can

elaborate on that kind of discussion a little later on.

As I say, the Pacific Rim is a primary focus of attention of this department. The trip that we will be taking to Japan….

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): To play rugby.

[ Page 2265 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't play rugby, but I will be there, as

will the Premier and our staffs and a steel committee made up of a

group of people that were carefully chosen both from in government and

from outside of it to study the possibilities of steel production in

this province. When we go to Japan we will be sitting down with many

very important Japanese executives of various trading companies and

steel companies in that country.

Over the past several months we've had many very favourable

proposals from that country as well as others with respect to steel

production. The question remains: which would be the most favourable to

us in terms of the environment, in terms of the amount of jobs it would

produce and wealth that would be produced in this province? We will go

there with that in mind, and we will come back, hopefully, with a

picture that will enable the government to make a decision about the

direction of steel production in this province.

The interest of the department is also in the regional areas, as

I've said, and I wish to stress only that the three areas that are a

target for us are the northwest, the northeast — the Peace River-Liard

region, and the Kootenays. In these areas we will try to bring about

industrial development and decentralize the lower mainland

concentration of industry. Perhaps other departments of government will

try to make those areas more attractive for men and women and their

families to live in those regions and to work in those jobs.

We will always have as our watchword growth, but not growth for

growth's sake. We've repeated that. My hon. colleague is thumping his

desk softly. He's not quite convinced; he's suspicious of our moves. It

must be guided growth that will benefit all the people of British

Columbia.

With these thrusts and with these growths as I've described them in

the budget for 1974, it represents, I'll admit, a modest step forward,

but I'd be less than fair if I didn't indicate that we can in all

likelihood look forward to other changes soon. As these directions and

thrusts that I've described become more apparent, the requirements may

become more apparent as well from this House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, we have a new

department here which we are discussing — the department of economic

development and economic diplomacy. We have a new Minister and a new

Deputy Minister. I'm certainly happy that the Minister stood in his

place this morning and told us some of the directions he's going in,

which appear to be in a circle. He told us about the modest increase in

staff and modest increase in his budget. He gave us a bunch of

philosophical jargon about his department. He talked about the

opportunities for action but he failed to tell us what positive action

he proposes to take in this department.

He did mention industrial land banking. He talked about the

forthcoming trip to Japan. One Member interjected while he was speaking

that he was going there to play rugby, but I know that the Minister's

going there in an attempt to attract a steel industry for British

Columbia. If he does find some spare moments he would qualify, I'm

sure, for the scrum half on the rugby team.

I'm not going to speak all morning, Mr. Chairman, even though I

could on this department. I'll give it to the Minister in small chunks.

First, we find the Minister said that there has been a modest

increase in his staff. Staff has increased from 53 last year to 106

this year — exact doubling of staff. The Minister considers that to be

a "modest increase."

He talks about initial staff as well. Oh, you're so modest, Mr.

Minister. He talks about the modesty of his budget as well, a budget

that increased from $2,168,000 to $4,332,000, an exact doubling of the

budget. The Minister calls it a modest increase. It's not modest; it's

not modest at all when you double a budget. However, we'll expect some

action from your department in view of the dollars being injected into

your estimates this year.

I want to discuss the first order-in-council very briefly that was

presented by the Minister. It shocked me and it shocked a lot of

British Columbians as well. It said:

"Whereas the Victoria offices of the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce presently located in the

Douglas Building are being moved to new premises;

"And

whereas the cost of new furniture, et cetera, is estimated at $86,000;

"And

whereas this additional expenditure was not

foreseen or provided for by the Legislature and is urgently and

immediately required for the public good;

"And

whereas the undersigned Minister of Finance reports there is no legislative authority for this expenditure;

"And

whereas the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce reports that the necessity for the expenditure is

urgent, a special warrant be prepared to be signed by the

Lieutenant-Governor for the issuance from Consolidated Revenue Fund of

the sum of $86,000 for the above purpose."

I'm rather surprised that a Minister of Finance of British Columbia

would sign such an order-in-council, an order-in-council which is not

specific and which should be specific.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

[ Page 2266 ]

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering what they bought with the $86,000

for the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce's

office. There's a lot of latitude in that order-in-council. Did you buy

an 8-ft. desk that will sleep three people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Did you buy some Persian rugs with this $86,000?

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Indian rugs.

MR. CHABOT: Were there Tiffany lamps purchased with this kind

of money? There is concern out there that this is an extravagant amount

of money to vote for a Minister's office. I think you should this

morning tell the people of British Columbia that you didn't use all

this money to furnish your office with exotic rugs and lamps and desks.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: The department we're talking about really is a

central department to government. It's a department which should be

pivot around which government direction in the economic sector

revolves. It is a department which should have flexibility, a

department which should display initiative, and a department which

should foresee opportunities to increase trade and to increase

employment opportunities through the use of our products at home.

I think the government has had ample opportunity to establish its

guidelines and its objectives. They've been in office now for 19

months. The new Minister said, when he took office in June, that there

is going to be a 6-month reorganization of his department. He tells us

now that the reorganization is going to continue. Is that

reorganization going to continue ad infinitum? We heard the same story

from the former Minister, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), in

which he stated in his annual report the fact that much of 1972 was

devoted to a critical self-evaluation of the department. When he spoke

about his department in the spring session last year he talked about

the reorganization taking place.

Have we been doing nothing else in this department but

reorganization? I think the department should be reorganized as quickly

as possible and get down to the business of looking after the

well-being of the economy of this province.

Some of the actions of the government have certainly affected the

ability of industry in this province to attract investment capital, be

it in the mining field, in the timber industry or in the industrial

sector.

I received a letter from an individual who is in the selling of

securities in Toronto. He expressed his concern about investments in

British Columbia. I think it is a very timely letter and one which the

Minister should hear.

"With the current vigorous articles in the newspapers

and other publications concerning the British Columbia mining

legislation, I hope the enclosed photostat copies of articles from a

recent edition of The Northern Miner will be of interest to you.

"In my position as director of security sales to the

institutional field in a Toronto-based investment firm, I find that

lately it is virtually impossible to sell British Columbia mining

company stocks to any of the large insurance companies, trust

companies, mutual or managed pension funds here in the east.

"I feel this decidedly negative attitude will have a

bad effect on any financing the province may wish to do in the near or

long term. This unhappy situation will no doubt persist until such time

as the government is able to extend more positive encouragement to the

mining industry."

This is in a nutshell what the investment world thinks of

investments in British Columbia. It is a sad commentary indeed to see

these kind of statements being made by investment firms in other parts

of this nation and in other parts of this world. If you are going to

establish an industrial complex, be it in the primary field or in the

secondary field, in most instances you must attract investment capital.

I want to assure you that with the directions that have been displayed

by this government, it is going to be difficult indeed to attract

investment capital in British Columbia.

We find in the mining industry today the profit-earning ratio is at an all-time low.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that there is

a bill on the order paper, Bill 31, dealing with mineral royalties. If

he's beginning to move in this direction I would caution him….

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the

profit-earning ratio of mining stocks in British Columbia, which has

absolutely nothing to do with royalties.

It is at an all-time low, and this must tell the story. There is a reason why this low level has been reached.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Profits are away up, and you know it.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not talking about profits; I'm talking about the selling price of the stock and why

[ Page 2267 ]

it's so low in relation to its profit.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Because you've been scaring these people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: The reason the stock position of the mining

industry today is such is because of the fear this government has

generated in the investment world. There'll be a spin-off, and that

spin-off is there not only from the mining industry but to other

industries as well.

What kind of growth have you seen in the primary industry of

forestry for instance? There's been absolutely nothing; no action

whatsoever outside of small expansion programmes. Nothing of any major

substance has taken place in British Columbia in the forest industry in

the last 19 months.

I think you have a responsibility in your portfolio to convince your

colleagues to stop making these irresponsible statements which hurt not

only your ability to function, Mr. Minister, but the economy and the

well-being of this province and of the people of this province.

I want to speak for a moment about trade missions. When I was a young boy I subscribed to a magazine called Foreign Trade . I don't know if it is still in circulation or not.

HON. MR. LAUK: If you read it, it isn't.

MR. CHABOT: Well, when I was 15 and 16 I used to subscribe to

this magazine put out by the department of trade and industry of the

federal government. I found it most educational and most informative as

to what took place in the world, the kind of products that were

produced in other parts of the world, the kind of trade that took

place, the kind of negotiations that took place between the various

countries.

One of the things that impressed me about this magazine that came

out semi-monthly was the tremendous network of contacts the federal

government had established around the world with its trade commissions.

I think they've been there for many, many years — an excellent

opportunity for cooperation between the national government and the

provincial government, an excellent opportunity for any province in

this country to get a better understanding of the economic and cultural

affairs of practically any country in the world. I'm sure the Minister

could readily establish the potential of consumption of products

manufactured in British Columbia in another country. I am wondering

whether the Minister has made any contacts with the federal government

in connection with their various trade commissioners around the world,

whether the Minister proposes to have any joint missions in any part of

the world and, if so, what part of the world. What kind of products are

we talking about when we're travelling with these joint trade missions?

I notice the export trade from British Columbia will increase

dramatically this year. The Minister might call it economic diplomacy.

I notice from correspondence I'm getting on my desk that we are

exporting and will be exporting many miners from British Columbia, many

mining engineers, mining consultants and geologists. We are exporting

these people to regions that have a more favourable economic climate

than exists in this province. What we're really doing is exporting our

technological skill. I think it's a sad situation to see us lose some

of the most skilled workers in the mining industry anywhere in the

world. I think we should redirect our efforts in this regard to ensure

that these people who contributed so much to make the mining industry

in British Columbia one of the most viable in the world should have an

opportunity to continue to use their skills within the boundaries of

this province.

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

The Minister should direct his efforts towards the exporting of our

goods, not necessarily in the raw state but in the finished-product

state. He should direct his efforts towards attracting investment

capital to British Columbia to create secondary industry to manufacture

our primary industries. I want to know what action the Minister has

taken in this connection with the creation of employment opportunities

for people in British Columbia and for people who want to come and

enjoy British Columbia.

The Minister has done something. Just a few moments ago I accused

him of having done nothing, but he has done one thing: he has initiated

an industrial park on Tilbury Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

MR. CHABOT: Not too many months ago this government zoned

many little people in this province into one designation relative to

land. Locked in. No longer could they sell their land for other than

farming purposes. Yet we see what's happening by directives and actions

of this Minister at Tilbury Island.

I'm surprised the Minister would make some of the statements he has

made regarding Tilbury Island and the Land Commission when he says the

Land Commission was not established to protect all farmland. Are you

suggesting that by government whim, by government decision, farmland

can be used for other than farming purposes? Are you going to give that

same right to others than the government in this

[ Page

2268 ]

province?

I think it's terrible that you would take 726 acres of prime

agricultural land that cannot be compared as far as soil structure is

concerned with any other agricultural land in British Columbia and make

it into an industrial park. Some of the key questions regarding your

industrial park, Mr. Minister, are: where is the prior planning in the

establishment of this park? Where is the prior consultation with the

community? Do you consider this failure to plan, this failure to

consult, economic diplomacy? Did you really think this out before you

made your decision or is it just an idea picked out of the sky?

It's bad enough to destroy 726 acres of prime agricultural land, but

what about the lands you'll destroy by providing access to this

industrial site? Certainly there must be other suitable sites you could

have picked without using 726 acres of prime agricultural land. There

have been many questions put by organizations in British Columbia on

the use of this farmland. I'll read just a few of them.

Prior to that: when there was development at Squamish, the Premier

said, "Barrett says 'Environment Top Issue in Squamish Plans.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. CHABOT: Why isn't it a top issue at Tilbury Island? Why

isn't it a prime issue there? Is it because it was initiated by you,

Mr. Minister, rather than by the Premier? Did the Premier say it was a

top environmental issue there because he felt he was in hot water?

Maybe you need more pressure on you, Mr. Minister, to get you to take

the environment into consideration in your industrial development

complex.

Some of the questions put to the Minister which remain to this very day unanswered

are: has a study been made of the need for such an industrial park port development?

Is it available to the public? Has there been an inventory of the B.C. coastline

to determine where such a port could be situated with the least environmental

disruption? If so, is such inventory available to the public?

Has there been an investigation of the claim by six Delta farmers

that their operation will no longer be viable if they can no longer

lease the area planned by your government for an industrial park?

Has there been a study to determine the truth of the claim that

drainage in adjacent areas would be seriously disrupted if this 726

acres is loaded with sand in preparation for an industrial development?

Who has determined the dredging in this area will not be damaging to

fish runs?

Were alternate sites for an industrial port development considered?

Has there been an assessment of the impact on the Fraser estuary of

this proposed industrial port development in relation to a whole series

of concerns?

Those are very current concerns to which the Minister should apply

himself. The Minister should inform us this morning whether he has some

plans, whether he has examined alternate sites and whether he is going

to give people an opportunity to express their concerns on the matter

of environment, on the matter of the advisability of establishing this

industrial park at Tilbury Island.

The Minister talks about "jiggling", but "jiggling" when it's

convenient for the government. No one else can get involved in what I

consider to be the destruction of prime agricultural lands. The last

change in designation to the lower mainland regional plan was made in

1968. There were 19 requests made from 1966 to the present day and not

one of those requests were made by the provincial government.

We've heard a lot about organization of your department. But the

establishment of secondary industry is not created by organizing your

department.

You can have all the people you want in your department. It does not

generate jobs unless you assign these people to specific tasks in

attracting capital, in attracting construction of projects. We have the

expertise here, Mr. Member, but what we need is secondary industry. You

can't generate it by going around in a circle in your department and

establishing bureaucracy — by hiring more people.

You've got to tell us what kinds of specific jobs you're giving

these people that will create jobs in British Columbia through the

export of our raw materials and through the processing of our raw

materials. You've got to change your attitude towards industry. You

can't constantly attack industry as you have in the last 18 months and

expect them to come with open arms to create employment opportunities

in British Columbia.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): There are more jobs now than ever before.

MR. CHABOT: There are more opportunities for people to invest

in British Columbia at the present time than there ever has been

before, but you people are destroying the confidence of those people

who have dollars to invest in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You can buy all the ads you want in publications

in British Columbia and other areas, but that won't bring investment

capital to British Columbia. You must stop these harangues; you must

stop these constant attacks...

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking to yourself?

[ Page 2269 ]

MR. CHABOT: …against the investment world and against people that do develop our natural resources in British Columbia.

Now I want to ask a few more questions. First of all, I want to

thank the Minister for making the general development agreement

available in the House. It's most unfortunate that we don't have his

December 31, 1973, annual report. It's rather difficult to examine a

report of December 31, 1972, and scrutinize the actions of the

Minister. Probably if I was the Minister I wouldn't want to table his

annual report either prior to the estimates. But it is unfortunate that

he didn't take the initiative to table the report prior to his

estimates.

Now looking at the DREE arrangement which the Minister talks about — and I haven't had a chance to closely study it, but I've examined it — it appears to be an overall, general overview of development: possible

development for the Kootenays, the northwest and the northeast part of

British Columbia. There's nothing specific in this agreement. You must

come to some subsidiary agreements before anything specific can take

place. There must be dollars voted in this Legislature and voted in the

House of Commons in Ottawa for some of these specific proposals.

Really, this general overview is just an agreement in principle. That's all this amounts to, really.

Now can you tell me, Mr. Minister, whether it's possible for anyone

wanting to establish an industry in British Columbia in any of these

areas, to secure dollars from the national government prior to a

subsidiary agreement being reached? Because if it's going to take as

long — and I'm sure it will — to sign a subsidiary agreement as it has

to sign the general agreement of principle, well, industry is going to

move somewhere else where the climate is more favourable — probably to

Alberta where they have ample dollars available now and where they'll

willingly, I'm sure, make those dollars available in attracting

secondary industry.

I think it's very important that we find out now just whether

dollars are available prior to the signing of any of these subsidiary

agreements. I have many other questions I would like to pose but, in my

usual fair manner, I will allow an opportunity for other Members to

have a say too.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's always a treat to hear the Member for

Columbia River, Mr. Chairman, calling on us to provide more jobs…that

country boy from Columbia River. The issue of the session, Mr.

Chairman, is strawberry tomatoes.

No, I always like poking fun at the Hon. Member. He's sort of a

classic in this House and I don't say that without some degree of

affection. The Hon. Member raised a number of questions, and I'll

answer them quickly to allow other Members to speak. I've written them

down in point form.

The special warrant for $86,000 for furniture for the department was

when the department was in the process of doing two things: expanding

from I think it was 30 employees to about 51 and when space was needed

in the Douglas Building and we had to go downtown. Okay, so there are

two things there: we needed expanded space in any event, and the

increased population of the department was apparent. So we had to rent

space downtown.

There was no furniture down there, so we had to get a special

warrant to provide the furniture. Now that vote was for the department

itself, not the Ministerial office, as has been suggested by others who

are less responsible with their comments in this House. There was

$86,000 granted to the department to cover the cost of desks, chairs,

screens, cabinets, library and storage shelving, conference room table

and chairs, et cetera, for the department's new premises. It was a

general warrant to provide for all overall office expenses for an

entire department, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they use before?

HON. MR. LAUK: Now there was another point raised. I can't

comment on the Member's reference to the mining legislation, Mr.

Chairman, but he did say that the market has never been lower, that

we're scaring off investment capital. I think that I should apprise the

Hon. Member of some facts of which he should have been aware for some

time now.

Since this government took office, since Bill 42 and all the 100-odd

or more bills that were passed last year, bills that the Hon. Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and the Hon. Member for Columbia

River said would scare away capital investment within a year — that

there was going to be a Cadillac exodus from the province — in that

year, Mr. Chairman, capital investment jumped 103 per cent, between

1972 and 1973, to over $4 billion.

It climbed to an estimated $13.8 billion, an increase of $1.9 million.... I'm sorry, I'm talking about gross provincial product.

Capital investment is 103 per cent, it was over $4 billion last year.

MR. CHABOT: A 103 per cent increase?

HON. MR. LAUK: A jump of 103 per cent.

MR. CHABOT: No way. No way!

HON. MR. LAUK: Now the gross provincial product was $13.8

billion, an increase of $1.9 billion or 16 per cent over 1972. Even

taking the price index increase of 10 per cent, that's the highest in

history, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 2270 ]

MR. CHABOT: Inflation.

HON. MR. LAUK: Taking the price index increase into

consideration, Mr. Member — and even taking 10 per cent of that 16 per

cent — that's the highest increase in history.

MR. CHABOT: Generated by world markets.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know, people say "humbug" and they don't

have any faith in their province, Mr. Chairman. They always sit over

there and make carping criticism against the dynamic and progressive

policies of this government. That's all we've been hearing from the

opposition. We can't do anything for the opposition. They are carping

critics. They are against the people of this province, and they're

against the province itself.

MR. CHABOT: Is that figure of 103 per cent increase correct?

HON. MR. LAUK: The actual percentage increase in capital investment? I just gave it to you.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: With respect to trade missions, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Settle down now. Could I have a little order in here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, answer the question.

HON. MR. LAUK: The trade missions which the Hon. Member asked

about — well, we've been sending trade missions, or haven't you been

reading the newspapers. We've been sending trade missions all over the

world — one to Malaysia, one to Australia, and we're going to be

sending one to Europe soon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Maybe one to Ottawa.

HON. MR. LAUK: We had the Pacific Sawmill Exhibition. It was

initiated by the Hon. Attorney-General when he was my predecessor, a

brilliant move on his part — very successful for sawmilling equipment

in this province.

Let me read to you a little report I got — just from one trade

mission that I've sent over in the past paltry few months I've been in

office; one example of what a trade mission has done.

MR. CHABOT: Where did you go?

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't go anywhere on these trade missions;

they are the business community and for only one or two members of my

staff which lead the trade mission, Mr. Member. I'm not interested in

travelling except for specific, hard negotiations and special purposes.

Now, these trade missions — I just picked one out of the bundle at

random, Mr. Chairman — the one to Australia. This was a group, I think,

of seven or eight cabinet-makers of British Columbia. We didn't know we

had cabinet-makers here; I'll bet you didn't know that. They're known

around the world as being quality cabinet-makers.

Here's the report after less than a week of that trade mission being

in Australia — it's back now. Crestwood kitchen cabinets has signed an

agreement valued at $7.5 million over the next five years for the

assembly in Australia of cabinets shipped and manufactured out of

Richmond. This agreement only covers the market in Sydney, Australia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What country is that?

HON. MR. LAUK: Australia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's their government?

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, I think it's a little left of ours.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, is that right?

HON. MR. LAUK: And if the Australian company is able to sell

nationally, Mr. Chairman, the value of the contract will be increased

substantially.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's the government in Great Britain?

HON. MR. LAUK: No. 2. Monocrest will be returning to

Australia within the next two weeks to sign an agreement for the

national sale of their product, valued at $1.6 million a year for the

next five years.

International Cabinets is awaiting a letter of intent from an

Australian marketing organization that will cover an annual order

valued at $50,000 a year for that particular company. And that looks

fairly clear.

Each of the other three companies that we took on the mission is

shipping samples of its product to Australia for evaluation. The total

cost to this department of that mission, a little under $10,000. That's

a very good investment.

We've been sending trade missions. Where have you been? Read the

press. And when we do send trade missions, I'm instructed and as I was

aware, the federal trade commissioners are informed well in advance and

they cooperate in the planning. I must

[ Page 2271 ]

pay tribute to them and thank them very much for the assistance they're giving to the Government of British Columbia.

The Hon. Member mentioned Tilbury Island. I don't know how often

I've answered the same old questions which you say are unanswered. That

seems to be a pattern and I'll continue to go and play the circle game

with you if you like.

The cost of industrial land in the Province of British Columbia,

especially in the lower mainland and Vancouver, is the highest in

Canada. There's no question about that. The 726 acres…the 3,000 acres

in the area of Tilbury has been zoned by the Delta municipality as

industrial since 1966.

The Delta position, as of last week, is that they want 3,000 acres

put into industrial development. I'm not going to comment on their

approach, but they're behind the Tilbury development; don't say there's

no consultation.

When we first started out there was a mayor of Delta, who is not the

mayor today, Dougal Morrison. We discussed, generally, the outline of

our programme in that area. Now, we can't make press conferences, Mr.

Chairman, when we're going to buy land because you know there are some

people out there who will raise their price. I know this will be a

shock to you: some of them raise prices when they know the government's

buying land, so we had to buy it on the QT. We didn't buy it at farm

prices; we bought it at industrial land prices. And I'll stand behind

that any day of the week. The average price was $10,000 an acre.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It was $6,000 an acre and you ripped off the farmers.

HON. MR. LAUK: That is absolutely false! Absolutely false. Not $6,000 an acre; it is an average of $8,500 an acre.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I say to you, Mr. Chairman, as I said when I

announced the Tilbury land assembly, this government is subject to the

Land Commission, and I will subject the Tilbury land assembly to the

approval or disapproval of the Land Commission. I have said that from

the beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who owns the Land Commission?

HON. MR. LAUK: Let me explain to you that the industrial

development in the Tilbury area is already there: there's a Dow

Chemical refinery; there is manufacturing going on there; there are

storage facilities there — all over the area where we have accumulated

726 acres. Now, go out and have a look before you talk.

The second thing is that some of it is good agricultural land, some

of it isn't, in the 726 acres. What about the whole purpose of the

Tilbury land assembly? The Hon. Member is forgetting about the people

who live on the Burrard peninsula who are being strangled because of

lack of living space. There is a way to relieve that kind of pressure

on industrial land within the Burrard peninsula area, and that is by

providing low-cost, reasonable rates for industrial land in the Delta

area on a planned basis. That can be done; it is being done.

The federal government has the same approach and agrees entirely

with our approach in this matter. In the Delta municipality the newly

constituted council agrees entirely with industrial development in this

particular area. I will not comment on the fact that they want 3,000

acres. The provincial government thinks it's satisfactory for the time

being to have 726 or 800 acres in that area.

The Member mentioned jobs, secondary industry, more opportunity for

investment. They're lining up, Mr. Chairman, they're lining up. It's

just a question of who we let invest in this province and on what

terms. There is no fright; there is no fear on their part. They are

lining up at the door to put their money in this province because it

seems that people in central Canada, in Japan, in Germany and in

Britain have more faith in this province than you do, Mr. Member.

They're going to invest their money here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: There is the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey who said name one.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I said name two.

HON. MR., LAUK: Name two? Okay, that's three all together. Do I hear four? Do I hear four? (Laughter.)

The Hon. Member asked about the annual report for the department. I

apologize to the House for the delay. I really do think I should have

had it here on time. I got the final draft....

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Could I have some order here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: May we have some order, please?

HON. MR. LAUK: The final draft was unsatisfactory to me, quite simply that. I did not think it was informative enough and I wanted more

[ Page 2272 ]

facts put into the annual report. I hope to file it

before the end of this session — some time in August, before the end of

this session.

Now, the general development agreement….

MR. CHABOT: Did you change the picture?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll just quickly answer that. Nobody's going

to…. Now, the general development agreement, if you read

schedule A,

emphasizes the three regions that I've discussed in due course. We're

already in the throes of negotiating specific subsidiary agreements

with the federal government to provide money in those areas. That money

may take the form of infra-structure, it may take the form of specific

projects or industries, private and public or both. These things will

become clear and announcements will be made in due course.

I agree that's a general agreement. That's right, it's a broad, motherhood agreement.

The reason for the delay in signing is that the federal government

has logistical problems in arranging assigning time. They have much

more difficult problems getting things through cabinet, it seems. They

have agendas, and things are delayed and put off, and so on.

MR. CHABOT: Just one brief question regarding your

development at Tilbury Island. I wonder if you could tell me whether

there have been environmental studies to establish the impact that this

kind of development will have on the general area. If there haven't

been, will there be environmental studies?

HON. MR. LAUK: There are two things involved. We are

providing an industrial park for light manufacturing and other kinds of

what we would call pollution-free industry. The only thing that would

pollute would be the toilet facilities in this kind of industry which

we want to put there.

However, if we want to proceed later on in dredging in our area to

build a port, which is a possible concept, these studies will have to

be completed, and the terms of reference are being drafted for those.

But until those are completed, Mr. Member, we won't proceed with any

port. I want to make that clear. We want to make sure that the Fraser

estuary is protected and intact. And that's part of our philosophy.

Now the second thing is that unfortunately the Fraser River Harbours

Commission, which is out of our control, is going to be dredging there

anyway. We have to check that out with the federal government. They

have informed me that they have done extensive studies and they feel

that it will not harm the estuary there. But discussions and

investigations through my colleague's department, and so on, should be

continuing. The dredging on that side of the river they are entitled to

do in any event. We have to look carefully at that situation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I would like to

start out by congratulating the Minister on his new Deputy, who is a

distinguished public servant and who I know will add as much lustre to

the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce as he has

in his previous tasks.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express a lot of sympathy and concern for

this Minister. He is in a very difficult position in this cabinet. He

is almost the sole spokesman for the producers of this province, and

that's a difficult position in this cabinet, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, I was going to go on to say that

there are two other spokesmen for producers in that cabinet. I said he

was almost the sole one, Mr. Minister; there are two others. There is

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and there is the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of

Labour have been notably successful inside the cabinet in representing

their clientele. The thrust of the government has been obviously

sympathetic to the interests of those two Ministers. I hope that we can

find some success over the coming year in the representations of the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, because we

haven't seen it very much to date.

We need a strong Minister there. We need a C.D. Lauk. Can a G.V.

Lauk become a C.D. Lauk? I am keeping my fingers crossed over the next

year, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

AN HON. MEMBER: We need a new cabinetmaker over there.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister asked for a rational debate and he

gave us a few figures about what was happening in the province. He said

the gross provincial product was up 16 per cent. That's nice but he

didn't mention that not 6 per cent was inflation; 10 per cent of that

was inflation in 1973 — a year-over-year, December-over-December

increase of 9.6 per cent. And he didn't mention that 3.5 per cent of it

was growth, because that's what British Columbia is growing every year

in population terms.

So what was the increase per capita? Around 2.5 per cent. That doesn't measure up very well to the

[ Page 2273 ]

national average. You can throw those numbers around all you like, but it isn't very impressive.

Then he gave a figure for capital investment, Mr. Chairman. He

didn't break that down at all. In particular, he didn't say how much of

that capital investment relates to the development of secondary

industry in this province, which is the particular responsibility of

his department, and the thing that we need to develop — a stable,

long-term base in this province.

He did, in his remarks, mention one secondary industry. He found a

furniture company that made some sales in Australia, and I am glad he

is getting one or two nice letters like that. Most of the letters I'm

getting run something like this: they say, "I am a small businessman

and the government is putting me out of business."

HON. MR. LAUK: File them.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be happy to file them. Mr. Minister, I'll

send you a lot of copies. A lot of them, of course, relate to one

specific industry, but I will get to that in a little bit.

Now I hope that the Minister is going to make some policy statements

in various areas as we get along here, because it is a lot easier to

have the rational debate he is inviting if we know the position of the

government.

For example, I would like to know the position of the government on

resource product upgrading. It seems to me that the logical place to

start in enhancing our secondary industrial position in British

Columbia is to work with the things we already have, which are, in

particular, the products of our forests and mines and, to some extent,

of our oceans and fields.

The Minister was quoted the other day as saying that perhaps there

should be more smelter assistance available than had been projected in

one of the pieces of legislation, Bill 31, that we can't discuss at

this point. I would suggest that there certainly should be. Studies

that I have seen about the differential cost of smelting in British

Columbia as compared to, say, the rate that the Japanese will give on

smelting, is on the order of three or four cents a pound.

I would like to ask the Minister very specifically what he thinks of

that differential, whether he thinks British Columbia should have a

copper smelter and what specific action the government is prepared to

take.

I will state my belief,

Mr. Chairman. British Columbia should have a copper smelter. It is a

disgrace that we are producing over 700 million pounds of copper

annually and are shipping it out of this province for smelting

elsewhere. We can have in this province an environmentally sound

smelter that will provide thousands of jobs in British Columbia.

All it takes is a little government action and determination to give

the little bit of extra encouragement that private enterprise needs to

get on with that job.

That's in one specific field. But what other views has the Minister on the upgrading of our resource products?

I would like to ask him, too, about his view on foreign investment

in British Columbia. He referred to investors from many parts of the

world that he said were anxious to come to British Columbia. That's a

good thing. I hope he will name some names and give us a list of people

anxious and willing to come to British Columbia. But I had always

thought that his party, Mr. Chairman, was one that looked askance at

foreign investment and kind of thought it was tainted money and not

exactly the kind of thing we wanted in Canada.

I hope you will outline to us his quite specific thoughts on foreign

investment with some examples, I hope, and some guidelines. The federal

government has published some legislation and guidelines on foreign

investment. Does he agree with those federal government policies? Would

he be more stringent in British Columbia, or would he be looser?

On another subject, I would ask the Minister if he will institute a

programme of encouraging better business education in British Columbia.

We have in British Columbia technical training in many fields which are

excellent: in the professional fields, in much of the work out at the

B.C. Institute of Technology, medical people, lawyers, and so on.

We have a certain amount of provision for training in administration

and business education, but in my view it's insufficient. I think that

the Minister could do a good deal for industrial development in this

province, in the general field of business, if he made it possible to

have more home-grown British Columbia talent in the senior levels of

not just industry, but our government administration as well, because

that takes the administrative talents of an equally high order as

business.

I would like to get his views on the subject that has been

elaborated so often and so eloquently by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). That is the possibility of making

British Columbia the research and development capital of Canada. We

have the natural advantages for that.

We have some great educational institutions; we have the kind of

climate — here I speak of natural climate as distinct from political

climate — that research people flock to and have done in other parts of

the world, particularly in the United States. Studies of the science

council and other groups have shown quite conclusively how research is

the mainspring of industry. It's a social investment in the short run,

but in the long term it has a very high payoff in terms of jobs and in

terms of productivity. I

[ Page 2274 ]

would like the Minister to comment on that.

He has a B.C. Development Corporation now. Could the Minister spell

out to this House the investment policy of this B.C. Development

Corporation, just in a few paragraphs? What is going to be their

general thrust — what degree of sophistication in production?

Is it going to go after, is it going to concentrate in the primary

sector? Is it going to concentrate on secondary manufacturing? Is it

going to concentrate on the service sector? How much control does the

Minister plan to exercise over the B.C. Development Corporation? Is he

going to audit each of their major investments? How much independence

is he going to give that group?

Mr. Chairman, there was an interesting

article in the newspaper a

little while ago — dateline Saskatoon. I think this was a conference

the Premier was back at and I think the Minister was along with him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I was along with the Minister on that.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says he was along with the Minister,

but the Premier was the spokesman on the occasion, nonetheless. Perhaps

the Minister gave him leave for that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wrote the words and he wrote the music.

MR. GIBSON: The

article says:

"The four western provinces took a major step towards

their alliance Thursday by announcing they will try to form a common

industrial development strategy. The decision to attempt to stop, in

the words of Premier Dave Barrett, 'mindless competition for the same

investment dollar' may turn out to be the most important economic

decision made in the west in recent times."

Well, it certainly turned out to be one of the most important

economic decisions for Saskatchewan. There's no doubt about that.

Saskatchewan has a magnificent steel mill on the way. Was that the one

that was planned for British Columbia, Mr. Chairman? Why are they going

to Japan? Do they plan two steel mills in the west?

What are his thoughts on that steel mill, Mr. Chairman? Is there

room for an extra steel mill here in British Columbia? Could he tell us

the market in British Columbia for steel products? Could he tell us the

market in British Columbia that's currently being served by Western

Canada Steel from their scrap reduction? Could he tell us the market,

not in tonnage, but in kinds of steel in reinforcing bars and

flat-rolled stock and all that kind of thing, because it's not enough

to say that there's hundreds of thousands of tons or millions of tons

here in British Columbia. You have to go beyond that and say it's this

kind of product and the mill we would like to put up can make that kind

of product because there is a very wide variety and there are economies

of scale in the steel business.

Before he goes off for Japan and looks for foreign investment in our

steel industry, could he tell us what talks he has had with Canadian

steel companies, what kind of propositions they made him, and if he has

reason to believe that the Japanese are going to be more generous?

Because Canadian steel companies have a very high standing in the

world. They have been consistently more profitable than U.S. companies.

They have been able to undersell the United States steel companies in

the United States market, even though they are much smaller, because

our Canadian steel companies….

AN HON. MEMBER: On some commodities.

MR. GIBSON: …on some commodities. Our Canadian steel

companies have stayed in the forefront of technological progress; they

have made the investment to modernize. They are Canadian companies, not

foreign-owned companies. To what extent has the Minister talked with

them? Will he give them a chance at the British Columbia market as well

as the Japanese companies? Indeed, why does he have to go to Japan at

all?

I would like to speak for a moment about the statistics branch of

the Minister's department, to say how tremendously important I think it

is. I cannot find in the estimates book, and lacking the annual report,

I cannot find a breakdown on the manpower and the increase in the

statistics branch. But I hope it's a large increase because this

statistics branch is critical to the Legislature in the performance of

its duties and to British Columbians in the assessment of how things

are going in this province. I hope the Minister will continue to

upgrade that department and to enlarge the staff there, the current

staff being excellent but more people being needed.

Would the Minister give some thought to guaranteeing the continuing

independence and impartiality of that branch by making a relatively

independent post of chief statistician of British Columbia? Perhaps

pursuant to a statistics Act brought in for the purposes of

guaranteeing that kind of autonomy because one of the most important

things in the public dialogue is that people should be able to have

faith in the government figures. I submit to him that the best way to

do that is to have it pursued under the aegis of specific legislative

authorization and relative autonomy of the chief statistician.

I commend to the Minister's attention, and I brought this up first in the estimates of the Minister

[ Page 2275 ]

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the need to create an economic

council of British Columbia. I want to read a couple of paragraphs from

The Toronto Star of February 26, because there is in Ontario exactly this kind of institution

"The 21-man Ontario Economic Council has a budget of

$402,000 this year to advise the provincial government on Ontario's

economic and social development.

"The council was set up in 1962 to suggest ways to ensure

stable prices, full employment and economic development. Although it reports

to the Minister of Industry and Tourism, 'it can do pretty well anything,' says

the council's chief executive officer, Ian Butters. The council has issued 23

major reports, and most, like the five latest, are written by private consultants."

Then it goes on to list five reports of an excellent variety, cutting across

the economic, social and organizational structure of the province.

I would commend this kind of institution to the Minister as a thing

that would be very helpful to him as another voice in this province for

the production side of affairs rather than the consumption side of

affairs.

To come back to this theme briefly, this government is very good at

consumption and doesn't understand as well the production side of our

economy, so every new voice we can get in that area is an important

addition to British Columbia.

A council of this kind would produce an annual report which would

discuss the business, the labour, the economic and general climate in

British Columbia, and as well concentrate on special factors of

importance that might have emerged over that year. A council of this

kind could, as well, on reference from the government, make special

studies in areas of concern to the government.

We could sure use a couple of studies right now in the housing field

and the mining field. I think it would be useful to the government had

it had an institution it could have referred these things to six months

age, a year ago, whenever the government first got the concern in these

fields, instead of bringing in half-baked legislation based on

completely inadequate economics.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, when the Minister was saying some words earlier on, he

said to some of the opposition Members, "You have no faith in the

province." What he didn't understand is that the opposition has no

faith in the government in this particular area because there's never

been a time, Mr. Chairman, of greater unease in this province in the

business community. There's fear in some sections — I don't think

terror would be too strong a word.

There have been suggestions of people leaving British Columbia. I

don't think there's much of that; British Columbians don't want to

leave this province. It's a wonderful province. We believe in this

province, but this government has created a terrible climate of

uncertainty and in many areas fear.

Look at the field of mining and look at the Minister's concern about

northwestern development. Now he signed an agreement with the federal

government, a DREE agreement. I'd like him to tell us how much money

there will be available. Newspaper accounts have suggested $300 million

of federal money in two five-year increments of $150 million each over

the next 10 years. Were these accurate reports? Is this on a 50-50

matching basis?

That's the financial side. Lets look at the real side, what's on the

ground. The centrepiece of the northwestern development area was two

enormous mineral deposits — three actually: The Stikine copper deposit;

the Liard copper deposit being developed by Silver Standard; and as an

energy source for these two mines if they came onstream, the Groundhog

coal deposits. Tying all this together was to be the British Columbia

Railway extension.

These developed mines were going to provide the basis of the freight

for the BCR extension. I'm not arguing against that extension; it

should be made. I have great faith in railroad extensions. In time it

will pay its way, but how long a delay is this government going to

cause through what it has done to the mining industry? The Minister

said…I don't know if I have the quote right here…he said that the

protestations of the mining industry were temporary. I've lost the

quote, Mr. Chairman — I don't have it right here. He didn't think they

were very serious, in any event.

I think he's whistling in the dark. He needs those industries for

his northwestern development. I'd like him to stand up and agree with

me on that and tell us that they are an essential part of the package.

There can't be any question of it, but I'd like his confirmation.

I'd also like to hear from him how many lumber mills and pulp mills and what else he expects in the area.

He has to agree that those mines are critical, and he has to

understand that at the moment those mines aren't going ahead. What is

he going to do about that? The rest of the cabinet may not care about

that area or about that industry, but that's his job as Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. When all else fails and

when the cabinet gets off on a completely unfounded economic dogmatic

kick about driving an industry into the ground so that this region

under the Minister can't get developed, what's he going to do about it?

What's he going to do about it, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't know what

[ Page 2276 ]

you're talking about.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says I don't know what I'm talking

about. I'm telling the Premier that he doesn't know what he's talking

about. When it gets to the mining industry, Mr. Chairman, the Premier

doesn't know what he's talking about. I won't say any more than that — I don't want to be unkind to the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Go ahead — be unkind.

MR. GIBSON: I just want him to keep his ears open and learn something about the mining industry, because he's driving it into the ground.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not

to trespass into the area covered by Bill 31. Reference is quite

permissible, of course.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thou shalt not trespass….

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says: "Thou shalt not trespass."

That's the government that just said to all the prospectors: "We're

going to take over all your claims." But back to the Minister, because

I don't want to say things in this debate that should wait until a

later time.

Is the Minister aware of the long-year drilling contract on that

Stikine copper property — $900,000 that was going to block it out, that

was going to be the basis for his $400 million development that's been

cancelled? Is he aware of that? The Stikine copper property is a $400

million development; the Liard copper property is a $250 million

development. Add in the Groundhog coalfield and the associated railway

and you're up well over $1 billion. It's very important to British

Columbia, Mr. Minister. Can you give us the status of that, please?

Everything we hear is that it's gone sour because of actions of your

government.

Mr. Chairman, that's about all I'm going to say at this point,

except to once again say to the Minister that the opposition has great

faith in this province, just as the people in this province have. There

has never been a time in this province when its citizens have been less

certain about its economic future and about the future of areas best

described under the Minister's title as industrial development, trade

and commerce.

For that reason we wish the Minister well. We hope and pray that he

will be successful inside cabinet in bringing forth and getting

accepted those ideas that will make this province prosperous in the

future, and not rely on the forward momentum of the general Canadian

economy, which is what carried us through 1973, and on the number of

people coming here from other parts of the country, which is what

carried our growth through 1973. We hope that he will not rely simply

on the fortune of resources with which we were visited by the good Lord

for the future, but rather state how he is going to change and enhance

and encourage the secondary and tertiary sectors of this economy to

give us a way to build on our resource base for the future in the only

way that's a really secure foundation, and that's in a skilled, highly

educated, hard-working population based on research and development and

productivity in secondary and service industries.

HON. MR. LAUK: I want to say that I am really impressed by

the knowledgeability and the quality of the rational debate that the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has given us today. I

hope that he's an example to every one of the opposition Members. He

has presented today some rational inquiries and has shown his concern

about this department and the economy of the province in which he

lives. I'd like to congratulate him for that.

You've asked a number of questions, Mr. Member. I don't want to take

a lot of time but I'll try to answer them as precisely as I can. If

there are any specific numbers and details that you would like, I'd be

only to happy to provide them for you afterwards or in my office or

whatever you like. Obviously you are interested in a rational exchange.

Resource upgrading, I'll deal with in a moment — I want to discuss a

number of those things in just a second. I'll move on to foreign

investment and then come back.

On foreign investment, I'm not particularly happy with the foreign

investment review Act. I don't think it does anything for anybody,

quite frankly. I don't even think it's an attempt; I don't think it's a

first step in preventing the kind of foreign ownership of our

resources. Something should have been mentioned in the title of the

Act, for starters, which dealt with foreign ownership, not foreign

investment.

That's the key to the philosophy of the Government of the Province

of British Columbia — we don't put a flag on the money that comes into

this province. What we are concerned about is outright control of our

industries by foreign owners. We can't prevent all of it, but I think

we can prevent most of it and start to turn the tide in favour of

people in British Columbia owning their own resources and their own

industries.

We've taken some steps in that direction. Of necessity, they have

had to be negative steps, but we made them. One was the acquisition of

Kootenay Forest Products for the prevention of the takeover of not only

that industry but the community itself by Japanese owners. With great

respect to the Japanese, it happens to be a total community, and we

couldn't let them have it.

[ Page 2277 ]

In that way I say let's distinguish between ownership and control in

foreign investment. We are happy to receive foreign investment; we are

happy to provide a reasonable return on that investment. But we are

loath to alienate our industry and our resources to foreign owners.

With respect to better research education, I don't know whether the

Hon. Member has the organizational chart of the department — I sent

that along with the reading list. I suppose you don't. All right, then

I'll only give you 4 out of 10 for this first session.

In that organizational chart we have divided the department into two

halves: one is research, the planning branch; the other is operations.

Under research we have the economic plans and statistics. There would

be the statistical branch and the planning branch — two separate

groups, in order to preserve the very thing that you have been talking

about. The statistical branch to us is the key anchor to planning,

policy development and industry assistance generally. All of the

statistical information in our reports from the stats branch is still

available, and we hope upgraded to the private sector as a service. I

agree with you that it should be an independent branch, but it must

serve the planning side of government. You agree with that.

The business education group are what might be called, in our

organization, the business development side, and that's in operations.

It's primarily located in Vancouver. It includes business development,

trade and development and the small business institute.

There are several federal liaison programmes that look as if they

might be very good. We have a federal liaison group as well. Just a

small staff of one or two men and secretarial help to constantly keep

in touch with the federal programmes that are coming up. Some of them

are good. I don't feel the provincial taxpayers should be spending

money so that we can overlap in that field with the federal government.

At the same time we have the small business group which will be

providing specific details, management, marketing experience, source of

raw materials, and so on, whatever it happens to be. We hope to be able

to coordinate those things and put people together and assist them in

developing small businesses.

We are working closely with the British Columbia Research Council,

of which I am chairman of the board, and they have small business group

management seminars as well.

I think this Hon. Member deserves an answer. Some don't, but this Member does.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Discrimination!

HON. MR. LAUK: Some don't in other places at other times.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Research and development in British Columbia,

I couldn't agree more with every one of the comments made by the Hon.

Member. My department, together with the B.C. Research Council, I hope

soon will be developing a proposal for an exemplary industrial research

park in and for the Province of British Columbia. The location and the

details, I think, should await further announcement. But I think you

are absolutely correct; it is essential.

You mentioned remarks by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer). I don't believe that really he covers that in detail in

his discussions. He usually talks about how the technological advanced

types of research, and he talks about some kind of a lens — a

solar-view lens. I've read the book — everybody's read the book — I

have it under my pillow. Looking at the stars and the moon and so on.…

I think this is what the Member does most of the time because, you

know, I found out that it would only employ a handful of people, and

most of those we would have to import from the United States because of

the technical problems. Then he talked about some other technological

advance….

MR. GARDOM: You missed the whole point.

HON. MR. LAUK: No, I don't miss the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey's point, and I don't miss the point made by the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) because they are

different points. I accept the Member's comments, and I think we should

have an industrial research and development park here in the Province

of British Columbia to attract people from all over the province and

use provincial brains and technology.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: But we are doing something about it with the

B.C. Research Council. Would you wake up Garde, there? I don't think

he's been listening.

The development corporation investment policy — that will be

decided, in terms of the legislation, by the board of directors.

Control and independence will be, in terms of the legislation, with the

board of directors. I took every opportunity and every piece of time,

even though I was under great pressure from all sides of the House to

get the board appointed, I wanted to appoint what I would consider a

board that could act independently in the interests of the people at

large. I think I have done that and they have the confidence of this

government as they should have. I hope they will carry out an

independent line.

Now, you must read that statement in line with

[ Page 2278 ]

the legislation which controls the amount of investment or purchase

to $1 million. We felt we must be responsible to this House and have

the corporation responsible to this House in that respect. Other than

that — other than a few controls in terms of their establishment and

how many people they hire, and so on — their investment policy, their

thrust, their direction, is that of the board of directors. I think

that it is as independent as we can responsibly make it.

Western economic cooperation: I'll deal briefly with that. I dealt

with it before. Steel in Saskatchewan; as far as we are concerned there

is lots of room for competition. I agree with you, you have to look at

specific products of steel to determine what kind of market you have in

British Columbia. For example, we shouldn't make rails. Rails, to me,

are more efficiently made in Nova Scotia or in the Maritimes, and we

can ship them through the Panama Canal more cheaply than we can make

them here. There are other examples: piping, nuts and bolts, rebar and

merchant bar that must be made here because that's the cheapest place

to make them — ships, boxcars and so on.

When we think about the potential of the use in British Columbia for

steel, we are not just thinking of today and the 250,000 to 200,000-odd

tons that are used by Western Canadian Steel in their rebar and

merchant bar operation — they use scrap and so on — we're not thinking

just of the current demand and the current market. We are thinking of

the potential as well, as I think any jurisdiction has to.

Yes, we have heard from Ipsco, but I would just like to say we

should be careful to respect the confidentiality of the steel companies

who have submitted proposals to us. I will say no more about our

conversation with Ipsco, or any other company until we have made a

decision that is favourable to one or the other or none.

The economic council — on the one hand we have opposition Members

who are saying that this socialist government is increasing bureaucracy

and so on and so forth. It seems to me an unfortunate direction to form

an economic council that must have its staff and must have an

organization at a time when we can already call upon the academic and

the business community, as I have been doing for the last several

months, for informal discussions and policy directions. They have been

very helpful, and I pay tribute to the people at our universities and

colleges, and to the key people of the business industry who never vote

for us, but who seem to be British Columbians first and who offer their

advice without partisanship and are very helpful to us. We don't agree

sometimes — quite often — but that's what happens.

I think I would like to keep it on that basis for a while. If we see

the need for an economic advisory council — maybe initially an informal

one, then we can formalize it later on.

The general development agreement I've announced to the press: $150

million from the feds over five years. A drop in the bucket. The

provincial government is going to spend much more money in this

province than that, but we're a rich province and perhaps we don't

deserve any more than $150 million over five years. Maybe we don't

deserve it. I don't know. But we pay our taxes.

I'll just answer that the northwestern development thing depends on

a number of factors. It depends on the railroad, not only the extension

you're talking about, but another as well. It depends also on the

sawmills, on the Eurocan situation, on the Canadian Cellulose situation

and on port development in Prince Rupert. I say that the most important

decision we have to make in this province — well, maybe the second or

third most important — is port development at Prince Rupert.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's one of the most intelligent things he's said all

morning. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. LAUK: And he'll never get much better, Mr. Chairman.

There's that massive opposition trying to overrun this people's

government. They do it every time. In bed with big business. Every time

they're dealing and dealing, and trying to get us out of government.

The majority movement, whatever.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister return to the vote?

HON. MR. LAUK: Northwest development — Mr. Member, when that

railroad goes in there, if the people involved in the Stikine and the

Liard — is it Silver Standard you mentioned? — and in the Groundhog

coal situation, as soon as a railroad goes in there if they don't do it

somebody is going to do it. They know perfectly well that they're going

to proceed with that. It's just political posturing for them to say

that the Stikine is all over. Even if they don't, this province can

afford to wait. What's the big rush? What are you in a hurry for?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's going to be there for a long time, and we're not going to turn our backs on the northwest.

[ Page 2279 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't cut the trees.

HON. MR. LAUK: We saved Col-Cel from devastation because we

are concerned about the community. Your private enterprise buddies

didn't do that. They were going to pull out, pick up stakes, take a

bundle of cash and go to New York.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Great heavens, what a funny attack! The Hon.

Minister started off saying he was moving from "statistics to action."

Then he said that he'd expanded his Vancouver office, he talked a

little bit about analyses and meetings and cooperation between the

western provinces. He said that he's thinking about steel. Thinking,

thinking, thinking.

He displayed amazing acumen in dealing with directional knowledge.

He talked about the northwest, the northeast, the Kootenays and showed

that he was well aware of the points of the compass. Then he talked

about thrusts and directions and the Pacific Rim. Then he said, "Growth

but not growth for growth's sake." Mr. Chairman, those words were

rather reminiscent of the former Wes Black, even though they were

delivered somewhat like Whispering Smith.

Even most remarkable is the fact that the substance of the

Minister's remarks this morning are really truly in line with his

governmental predecessor. He's going some to try to get to that kind of

a record, I can tell you.

"From statistics to action," he said. He didn't give us any statistics,

Mr. Chairman, and he demonstrated even less action, as the Member over there

said.

When the Attorney-General had the portfolio last year, the only

claim that he had to performance was that he was restructuring the

department.

One thing — at least it was a spinoff Ministry for him, he wasn't

getting special pay for spinning his wheels in neutral as this Minister

is. But once again, he started off this morning with the old saw of

returning to organization and restructuring. He happens to call that

action. I'd just say ho-hum.

Speaking of action, I'd like to commend the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. King) for the encouraging remark he made earlier this morning

dealing with the hospital workers. I'd like to congratulate him for

that and I do hope the message that comes from this House this morning

could be well-studied and well-considered by the firemen at the

international airport in the City of Vancouver.

But to this Minister, we don't even have a report of his great world

of zero since December, 1972: 15 months of no account, of all of this

nameless and faceless dramatic action he's talking about. The Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made the point very validly. In taking

a look at this vote, we see office equipment in here is up from $450 to

$900 this year, which is 100 per cent. But by special warrant, it has

soared to $86,000 — just a modest 10,000 per cent increase — without

legislative vote and without legislative sanction, all done behind the

red door of cabinet.

There is, perhaps, not even the faintest of hope in a government

such as this to expect that this kind of a Ministry should be

successful. We have with this government the most radical, left-wing

government ever to exist in Canada since the time of its Confederation

and before that. I would probably suggest to this government, and to

the Minister as well, if he's not able to do better than he has

demonstrated this morning, the most economic course of all would be to

scrap the whole portfolio and make this money available to industry in

low-interest loans.

He talked about the business climate not being scared, as he says

the opposition has mentioned. That's absolutely false. The business

community in the Province of British Columbia is scared willy-nilly of

this government. They're looking to very good history and very good

reasons for being scared. They're looking at industry; they're looking

at the insurance industry, which was a taxpaying, lawful, non-polluting

vocation. Its doors were slammed shut, Castro-ized without

compensation, just like the action of any banana republic. And he

wonders why industry in the Province of British Columbia is disturbed

and is concerned and, indeed, is frightened.

The mining industry and prospecting are absolutely petrified. Rental

housing has ground to a halt. Forestry — the small loggers can't get

trees. Farmers and consumers are continuing to be set upon by

antiquated marketing boards, all espousing the kind of control and

regulation that is practised and preached by this government and by

this Minister.

The business community, believe it or not, Mr. Minister, has heard

of the most red, radical doctrine on the library shelves of this

country since Das Kapital : the Waffle Manifesto. It's very innocuously

labelled, but it's vicious in direction. I'm going to ask this Minister

whether he accepts or whether he rejects this premise:

"Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national

planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of

production in the interest of the Canadian people as a whole."

Do you

accept that or do you reject that premise? And, secondly, it says this:

"They include extensive public control over investment

and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as

the key resource industries, finance and credit, and industries

strategic to planning our economy."

Does the Minister accept or reject that? That

[ Page 2280 ]

covers all of the primary products industry in the Province of B.C.

as well as finance and credit. And he wonders why the business

community in the Province of British Columbia is scared.

What these people are espousing, Mr. Chairman, is everything under

one roof, under one red roof. I'm going to ask the Minister: is that

going to be the master plan of this government for the Province of

B.C.? I think he should keep right out of business because you're going

to wreck the economy and, I'd say, wreck the province. You're not going

to end up being a government but a wrecking gang. Government, Mr.

Chairman, should not be in the facility doing the job; it should be

sort of the cattle prod to the stern and the carrot to the front.

Provide the incentives and provide the guidelines and provide some

effective degree of intelligent regulation, but don't do the job

yourself and don't place everybody in-house.

A word about secondary industry. There's no question of a doubt that

we continue to need secondary industry in B.C. Ever since I've been in

this House, Members from all sides of the House have talked and talked

and talked and talked about the need for secondary industry in the

province. There has still been no dramatic increase at all. The label

we should have in B.C. should be "Made in B.C." instead of just dig it

and catch it and bag it and ship it out of the province.

This is why we need an explosion in the field of research. Make the

equipment we need to have to work the mines and to take the fish out of

the sea and to farm the farms — produce that equipment and make it in

the Province of British Columbia. In the field of research this is the

point the Hon. Minister missed. As my colleague mentioned a few moments

ago from North Vancouver, and as stated by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), it's not a question of the number of

people involved specifically in research; it's the fantastic amount of

spinoff industries that can result from an effective kind of research

programme.

I'm happy to hear the Minister say, yes, he's thinking about or

somewhat favouring a research park. Well, that's all right, but he's

talking about being a man of action. Let's have some action on the

thing and let's hear from his this morning. What are his plans? We

don't want to have him Rip Van Winkle the thing as he's apparently

proposing to do with steel. When he's talking about steel, where's the

ore? Is that all going to be B.C. ore or are we going to have to import

that as well? What are these plans and what are these projections?

That's the kind of information in my view that should be made available

to the public and not left in the think tank or otherwise of this

particular Minister.

Personally, I'd like to hear him say we're going to move into

continental free trade. The moment we did that, we would find the cost

of our products in B.C. dropping by 30 per cent at perhaps the very

least. I think that's a great direction to take, an absolutely great

direction to take.

Before sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to find out from the

Minister exactly what his responsibilities are and the precise

responsibilities of the civil servants who work with him — all of the

people in his department — in equating the value or the rationale as to

whether or not this government goes into the private sector, whether it

buys shares in a company or whether it involves itself in a complete

takeover. To what extent was his department involved in the Plateau

Mills transaction, of Vancouver Island Coach lines, or Pacific Poultry,

on South Peace De-Hy Products, or Woodbridge Development, or Kootenay

Forest Products, or Glenshiel Hotel as the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) up the street there says? And Dunhill Development and

Col-Cel. To what extent is the expertise or the lack thereof of this

Minister and his department involved in these transactions? If this

department is not the department primarily responsible for the

investigations, where does it come from? Where does it come from indeed?

I would ask the Hon. Minister if he is prepared to table the

analyses of the projections of these various companies the government

has taken over with this House. Is he prepared to go ahead and table

with this House the appraisals and the audits in the Dunhill situation?

Has that come to his attention? Surely to goodness he is the Minister

within this portfolio responsible for the financial expertise as to the

advantages or disadvantages, the latter it is in our view, of this

government entering into the private sector.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I hadn't really intended to get

into this debate. However, I was very much disturbed by some of the

comments of the Hon. Minister in answering the Hon. Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) regarding Tilbury Island.

I had thought, in light of the comments I made in the budget debate

and in the comments that others have made, that the Minister would have

considered scaling down the Tilbury Island proposal.

Presently the government has purchased 726 acres of land. It is my

feeling that this could be scaled down in such a way so that 500 acres

of that land could be maintained in agriculture. Some of the marginal

land, approximately 200 acres, could possibly be developed along with

other lands that are marginal in the surrounding area.

I asked during the budget debate and I would ask again that the

areas to be considered would be the bog areas. In Burns Bog there are

several thousand acres of land, much of it mined out and destroyed,

[ Page 2281 ]

filled with hog fuel and so on, swamp land, that could be used for

an industrial development. There's lots of land in Richmond — and I'll

get to that later on in my presentation — at least 1,200 acres

available that's also burned-out bogland which could be used.

It seems to me that we bought farmland back of Tilbury Island. We

bought it and we should farm it; we should not be putting it into

industrial development.

I would request also that we should be encouraging and actually

promoting overall environmental impact studies of the entire area — both the Tilbury Island area and the whole Fraser River estuary.

Particularly we should be investigating the activities of the Fraser

River Harbour Commission which the Minister was using to justify his

proposal. I think that that is a particularly dreadful proposal — the

one that the Fraser River Harbour Commission has been promoting for the

Fraser River. We should be taking some very strong action to stem their

proposals, to actually bring them to heel.

What they are proposing would completely destroy the Fraser River

estuary and we should not be embarking upon any of the programmes that

are going to encourage further development along the lines that the

Fraser River Harbour Commission has suggested. So I think it's very

important that we do carry out very strenuous, very careful

environmental-impact studies along the Fraser River estuary and not

just at Tilbury Island or the back-up land at Tilbury Island, but on

the Fraser in general.

It is true, Mr. Chairman, that the municipality of Delta is also

thinking of taking up more land. The land — 3,000 acres — was zoned for

industrial use prior to Bill 42, and the municipality of Delta is

considering that with the government plan they could actually expand to

a larger development than what we are even considering. The question I

have about this in relation to Bill 42 is: are we to say that all land

previously zoned for industry is going to be allowed to go into

industrial development?

It seems to me that's the inference when we are the first ones to

take land out of the agricultural reserve. If we are to take 3,000

acres of land out of Delta, or if we are to take 700 acres of land out

of Delta, what is to stop another 1,200 or 1,300 acres from going into

industrial development. Of course, Delta is already promoting that idea

now.

If we look at that then we have 4,000 acres of land in Richmond that

could be going into industrial development — land which is prime

farmland. In effect, we could see one-third of the farmland in Richmond

going in this kind of proposal. Presently the Greater Vancouver

Regional District has adopted a proposal that 4,000 acres of Richmond

land be put into a secondary reserve category under Bill 42, which

means that the question is already open as to whether it should remain

as farmland or whether it should go into industrial development. What

we are doing with the Tilbury proposal is actually leaving that door a

little wider open by saying: "Well, we've done it. Maybe you can get

your land into industrial development as well."

I think that we should be considering alternative sites to the

Tilbury proposal. Some of the land, as I suggested, could be used. Some

of it is less valuable farmland. Some of it could be used, but I think

the major portion of it should by used, as a buffer strip and a

protective agricultural area. We should be considering — and I would

ask the Minister to consider this — the mined-out areas in Burns Bog

that I've mentioned. There are thousands of acres there; it's a massive

bog area. A lot of it has been mined out and destroyed for its use as a

bog or for any other use — also the mined-out areas, the garbage dumps,

and the bog areas on the Richmond side. It's an area which the Fraser

River Harbour Commission has already recommended for deepsea port use

because it is very marginal land and, of course, it has the deepest

channel along that side of the river.

Also, I think that we should be looking into the marginal farmlands

to the east of the Tilbury proposal, lands which are scrublands full of

hard hack, lands that have been over-farmed in the past years. The soil

isn't as good as it is more boggy soil, and it's not as good for

farming. These are marginal lands that could also be considered. But

I'm very much disturbed that we're actually taking the prime farmland

from the area.

Then the final thing that should be considered that has not been

done is the impact on the overall growth of the area, and I would ask

the Minister to consider this. How much back-up land is required for

residential use, or if we're not going to have residential land for the

people that work there to live there, then how much land is going to be

taken up in roads and highways? What kind of transit system? How many

bridges, tunnels and so on are we going to need to get the workers from

Vancouver out to the Tilbury Island proposed site?

I'm not thinking here in terms as strictly as the Tilbury back-up

lands, but the land that's going to be required when the development

expands — which is bound to expand. When you start a development such

as this…. There has been nothing in here, no guarantee that it's going

to be contained to that 726 acres. So you end up having a much larger

area than you had anticipated. It's going to mean a tremendous amount

of growth in that area. I'm wondering how much back-up land is going to

be required for housing? How much for transportation and so on? What

has been considered there?

However, Mr. Chairman, what really disturbed me the most was the

Minister's suggestion this morning that they were actually going to be

dredging in the

[ Page 2282 ]

Fraser. This is something that I haven't heard from the Minister

before, and I was quite shocked in hearing it. The Fraser River Harbour

Commission has made a proposal in their study — the Norm Pearson report

— that the Fraser River should be dredged; that the river should be

channelized; that the banks should be brought out further into the

river; that the area should be infilled where the sloughs are, such as

Tilbury slough. It should be infilled and the river narrowed down in

order to flush the sand, the silt, out deep into the saltchuck instead

of allowing it to settle in the river bottom.

With this type of infilling — they call it a trifurcation programme

— they're anticipating that the river would be free-flowing and

self-flushing. I was quite surprised to hear the Minister suggesting

that the province was actually going to be participating in this

programme in some way.

What happens here is that you lose all the back eddies. You lose the

little sloughs around Tilbury and other parts of the river if the

overall programme goes ahead. The migrating fry coming down from the

spawning beds in the spring and the summer generally stop there to feed

before they go out into the ocean. In fact, if they don't stop there to

feed they'll be destroyed if they're flushed out into the saltchuck.

So, in effect, we could entirely wipe out the Fraser River salmon

fishery if we embark upon a programme like this. Now Tilbury won't do

it alone, but if Tilbury does it and then everybody else does it, it

could wipe out the fisheries. I'm very much concerned about this.

Right now biologists tell us that the major area for these young

fish is along the Fraser River estuary — upstream from Steveston,

actually — because the Roberts Bank area where they used to go and feed

has been destroyed to a large amount. The area around Iona Island, the

north arm of the Fraser, has been completely destroyed. All that's left

are the estuaries along the Fraser and part of Sturgeon Bank out west

of Steveston. So I'm very much concerned that we would be encouraging

that particular programme.

Finally, as far as the agricultural land itself is concerned, it is

estimated — and I think quite accurately estimated — that the Fraser

Valley farmland represents about 2 per cent of B.C.'s total farmland.

However, this 2 per cent of B.C.'s farmland produces 55 per cent of

the total agricultural crop value.

Putting this into millions of dollars, the total value of

agricultural produce in B.C. I believe in 1972 — I'm not sure of the

exact date on this — was $209.1 million. Of that, $114 million was

produced in the Fraser Valley, or 55 per cent of the total.

Now we're looking at a proposal here that's going to take out not a

major portion of that 2 per cent, but a large proportion of that 2 per

cent, from agricultural production. If anyone has visited the landbank

at Tilbury Island you'll find that it's land that's used for market

gardening. They're growing cabbages on it. There are potatoes and so on

— dairy cattle. Actually it's a highly intensified agricultural

production that's going on there.

In fact, in the Fraser River Harbour Commission report, which was

drafted up by Norm Pearson for the Fraser River Harbour Commission, it

says that in that particular area is land with the highest productivity

in the whole Fraser Valley. So I'm very much disturbed that that highly

productive land is subject to being taken out of production.

I'd like to read you before concluding, Mr. Chairman, a couple of

quotes directly taken from the Fraser River Harbour Commission report

with regard to the Tilbury Island area and with regard to the Richmond

bog area that I've suggested should be looked at as an alternative.

They've shown on their maps on page 21 of that report a diagram

outlining that Tilbury Island could be used for deepsea port — a small

portion of the south shore of the Fraser River. But the major area for

a deepsea port would be on the north side of the Fraser on the Richmond

side where the burnt-out bogs are that I've mentioned.

On page 22 of this report is "Deepsea Port an Industrial Priority." The second priority mentioned is,

"Fraser-Richmond: In the Richmond bog area this site

presents the best opportunity of the Vancouver area for a major port

facility with an integrated upland industrial area. It could well

include container operations. Major fill and preparation of foundations

would be required. Over 1,200 acres could be used and strong municipal

cooperation would be essential. Road and rail access and services are

needed."

Now this is for the Richmond side; you need roads and rail

access to it.

"The relationship to future crossings of the Fraser would be important."

Future crossings and further bridges to Vancouver, further bridges to Delta. These would be required on the Richmond side.

"This area will become increasingly central to the Vancouver area's population."

Then it goes on,

"The Fraser Delta side: This site includes Tilbury

Island and the areas to the east and west. It would involve major fill

areas."

Now that's much more than on the north side of the river. It would

involve major fill areas in their trifurcation channelization programme.

"It would involve major fill areas in conjunction with

river channelization and require checking on river models and with

fisheries people."

I would like to ask if this has been done?

[ Page 2283 ]

"Rail access is available but road and servicing improvements would be needed. Municipal cooperation would also be essential."

Now what I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that basically the Fraser

River Harbour Commission report appears to be the road that we are

following. The Tilbury site is going to require and is going to be part

of the channelization programme of the Fraser River. That, as it

mentions here "...requires checking with fisheries people and the

Fraser River model." I don't believe this has been done. I would ask

the Minister if he has looked into this. Of course, although rail

access is available, major servicing and improvements are also going to

be needed to get the people to and from the site.

I would like to request and suggest that we should be abiding by the

intent of the Land Commission Act and preserve farmland. We should not

be promoting development of anything on agricultural land except farm

production.

We should be looking into the formulation of a master plan for the

Fraser River foreshore. It could be under the environmental

secretariat, or it could be under the Recreation and Conservation

department. I'm not worried there too much which but we have to have

some major master plan for the Fraser River estuary before we get into

development plans such as the Tilbury Island proposal. This, Mr.

Chairman, should include public hearings so that people can have some

input into the debate as to how much and what kind of development we

want on the south arm of the Fraser.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that included in those environmental studies

and public hearings and master plan for the Fraser, that we have to

look very, very carefully at this report I mentioned from the Fraser

River Harbour Commission, because we have to make some attempt to curb

the influence that they're having on development along the Fraser.

We should also be investigating very carefully the feasibility of a

scaled-down industrial park at the Tilbury Island site, developing the

mined-out bogs at Richmond and Delta. This also should include, before

we go into that area, a comprehensive environmental impact statement.

I would like to suggest that the Environment and Land Use

Secretariat should immediately conduct a study of alternative sites

within and without the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It's not

entirely necessary that all this industrial development has to go in

the greater Vancouver area.

The Hon. Minister has suggested that we should have decentralization

and get the industry out of False Creek. Well, maybe this is a good

thing, but I don't think it necessarily has to be in the greater

Vancouver area. Perhaps some of the people at Kamloops might like to

have some industrial development up there, or maybe in other smaller

communities throughout the province. We should be looking into a

decentralization programme.

Mr. Chairman, the land that is already purchased in the agricultural

reserve, I think, should be maintained as agricultural land. I think

that if we maintain it as agricultural land, this would set a precedent

for the remaining prime agricultural land in the Delta-Richmond

foreshore area and other lands that are suggested in secondary

categories. If we say, "Okay, we've bought it; we're going to keep it as

farmland," then we'll be setting a precedent for everybody else.

Instead of breaking precedents, people would be able to keep our

precedent. We'd say, "Okay, we've got this land; we're going to farm

it," rather than the other way, encouraging people to say: "Well, the

government's set a precedent. They're taking the land out of farm

production; why can't we?" The precedent should be the other way

around, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, I think that we should be freezing all future land-assembly

programmes until public hearings have been held and some public debate

has gone on. The Hon. Minister suggested this could not be done because

land prices would increase drastically. However, I think it could be

done in such a manner that there would be no definite suggestion as to

where the site was going to be. We could do it in terms of whether we

want an industrial site in the Delta area, and if so, where and how

much? After we've had the hearings and had some debate on it, then

perhaps we could set up industrial sites. I think that if this would

have been done in the first place, probably we would have looked very

carefully at the bog areas, and probably this could have been done

without too much hassle and not too many complaints.

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Hon. Minister

look into these seven different suggestions that I've made and, I

think, look at them very, very carefully. I had the feeling before that

he was going to look into these things, and the feeling I got from him

today was that he was not. So I'm very disturbed about this.

I had the feeling that he was going to consider scaling things down.

I would like to say that I have been fighting this proposal for five

years before I ever got elected to this House, and I don't intend to

stop now.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I was interested

in his opening remarks today but he never came in with any specific

programmes of how he was going to help develop B.C. industry. Now we've

talked about the glamorous industry of foreign capital, and people have

mentioned large lumber complexes. They've talked about mining and the

[ Page 2284 ]

difficulty of obtaining funds from outside; but what about the small

B.C. companies? What are we going to do to help them develop? That's

the individual that has an idea but has limited capital and wants to

develop some sort of assembly or secondary manufacturing in British

Columbia. I think he's always been the forgotten man.

There are three things your department should be doing, Mr.

Minister. They've been mentioned before this morning but I'd like to

just run through them. The first is to help these B.C. industries, one

is research and the other is education. Certainly we're aware that

you're on the right track in providing additional research, and I

congratulate you for it.

Research isn't new. I know it's always been a part of the trade

department, but we need more research to help these businesses — not

just the sophisticated research for major companies, but to help the

small businessman develop some sort of secondary manufacturing.

The second thing they need, Mr. Minister, is trade missions. Now I

heard you mention trade missions this morning like you'd just

discovered them. But I understand that they've been going on for years,

not only out of British Columbia, but out of all other provinces plus

the federal government. Trade missions are out to find markets, and I

hope you'll include more businessmen. I know that organizations other

than government have been running trade missions from this province for

many years in search of markets, and I'm glad to see you continue this

programme of searching out markets.

But the one area the small businessman has trouble with — the

British Columbian who wants to start secondary manufacturing — is in

finding capital, and capital at a price that he can afford to pay. When

he's got the start-up costs and the heavy initial cost of starting a

business without a guaranteed amount of sales, his initial years

usually are in loss period. He needs low-priced capital to survive the

initial years.

There's the problem we have in finding a programme to provide aid

for these people. I don't want giveaways like the federal government

has had with its incentives to industries, because we've been through

that in the Okanagan. We've seen the folly of that programme of giving

money to industry with no guarantee that it will be paid back. We've

seen….

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about tax concessions under Social Credit?

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking about industry. I'll talk about the

Okanagan and why it was designated. It was designated under the formula

of the federal government, a formula that only worked in two areas in

British Columbia, but seemed to cover all of Quebec at that time — and

the Okanagan was part of it. I lived in the Okanagan and I saw the

problems connected with this.

The First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) seems to think that

there was some special agreement made from the federal government to

put that industry in the Okanagan. I must assure him that you can't say

that the former government had no contact and no input with the federal

government and then expect that they could make special deals.

Particularly the Okanagan had a problem. It has an employment

problem. The formula we had that they used for establishing those

grants was based partly on several factors. One was unemployment. We

had high unemployment in the Okanagan because of seasonal workers that

could work enough time and then register on the unemployment scheme.

That was part of the problem.

Packing house workers on an extended season got enough time, and we

had a high registration for unemployment that showed up in the

statistics. Many of these people were married women.

Anyhow, that isn't the principle I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact

that when those grants came in they didn't help many small local industries.

The industries we did get were mostly large nationals that didn't need the funding

or the help, or the direction into that area: companies like White Trucks, companies

like Hiram Walker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Companies like Wenner Gren.

MR. BENNETT: Well, they weren't in the Okanagan. What I'm

saying is that there were no small industries given any help in that

area. But not only that; these industries that came in, even such as

Fiberform from the United States, were able to get a one-third grant

from the government. And when their plant burned down there was no

there was no guarantee that they had to rebuild the plant.

They pulled the facilities out after they'd attracted 125 workmen

specializing in boat building and finishing into the area, and they had

no obligation either to repay the money or rebuild the facility. So I'm

not in favour of grants of that nature, and I'm not in favour of grants

to industry at all. I am in favour of aid in receiving financing.

Now most new industries don't have an earnings record. They are

small businesses, and the normal financial channels can't lend them

enough money to get them over their initial period. This is where they

may need some sort of help from the provincial government in the way of

a development corporation, providing capital.

The other problem is that most of the help available to them in the initial stages such as the IDB,

[ Page 2285 ]

which fulfils a function, is very expensive money — 11 and 12 per

cent. If you've ever seen the amount of security that the IDB demands

and how it ties up these small companies, it's very difficult for them

to ever get out of trouble should they not meet their initial economic

projections, because all their assets are encumbered and they don't

have the means to get any other form of proper financing. They would

have to deal in a third or fourth market at very high cost financing,

and that just helps them dig a deeper hole.

I think that if we're going to consider helping small businesses get

started, we have to look at a provincial fund with some sort of

subsidized interest rates during the formative years. I think that

that, along with the help you'll give them in the research in

developing their programmes and helping them find markets, will

encourage B.C. citizens to invest in their own province. This is what

we're talking about — not the big glamour industries, not the big

complexes but the small business that employs maybe only 10 or 12

people.

You mentioned Crestwood Cabinets earlier. There's a small business

that I happen to know and I've watched it grow. I've watched it develop

in the B.C. market. They finally had to go public to arrange additional

funding for their growth problems. But there are lots of businesses

which, until they've built up an earnings record, can't go to the

public market. They can't go to the banks, they can't go to all the

normal lending institutions because they're new and they have no

earnings record. This is a problem I talked about.

What you've got to do, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, is

develop a fund to provide these people funding, and enough funding so

that they just don't get into trouble. As I said, IDB (Industrial

Development Bank) lends you just enough money to get going and not

enough to cover those two- or three-year early losses that most new

businesses face.

Our party has had a proposal, and I'd like to re-introduce it at

this time, of a fund of capital that would have an accelerating

interest rate starting out with a minimum interest, say at 1 per cent,

and gradually increasing until it reaches an amount where they're

encouraged to pay it back. Now, this would probably coincide, when the

company's successful, with several years' earning record where they can

probably go and get financing from normal institutions. They will have

a history of earnings; they will have a history of production and it

will also ensure that this capital is paid back to keep the fund

revolving in this provincial development fund. You wouldn't have to

keep increasing the fund because it would come revolving after awhile.

I think proposals such as this would do a lot to help the small

businessmen and people that want to start these industries in our

province. They're the ones that everybody talks about but nobody really

helps. They're the ones that don't have the sophistication to pay for

expensive research and studies prior to going into business. They are

the people who have a good idea, they have the practical experience,

perhaps, to carry it off but they don't have the money to do the

feasibility study in the first place. They need the help from your

research division; they need help with capital; they'll need help

finding markets. I just put this forward as a suggestion to you today,

Mr. Minister, through the Chairman.

One or two other things I wanted to mention. I would like to have

some idea and some expansion on the thoughts on Tilbury Island that

were expressed by the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). These concerns

have been brought up in the House before. They were touched on by the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), they've been discussed at a

meeting I was at in Richmond not so long ago. The people there are

still concerned. I wonder if, when I sit down, in response to my

remarks you could give a response to the Member for Richmond (Mr.

Steves).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I think the

Member for Richmond raised a number of points which were very good ones

and which have not been covered previously. At least, they've not been

answered previously. I'd hope that in response to the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) the Minister would give a few answers on

the whole question of Tilbury Island and the development in the Fraser.

He really didn't succeed in settling anybody's doubts and certainly not

the Member for Richmond's. I think those points that were raised were

good ones.

I'd like the Minister, before he requests the House to pass his

vote, to indicate to us why, precisely, the area was chosen, why there

was not a proper environmental study done and what about the impact of

the future development in that area on the shole environment of the

Fraser River estuary.

I'd like to refer him to the criticisms that he has had of those who

have asked questions on this. All he said was — and I'm quoting a

newspaper story of some time ago, I believe back in November — "The

people who are criticizing this decision to establish on Tilbury Island

were elitists." I just don't find that calling people names, Mr.

Chairman, is a successful way to solve genuine doubts that people have

about the development on the island. The fact is that there is

considerable concern.

I found in the paper on February 5, 1974: "Lauk Rebuffs Protest on Industrial Park." The first sentence of this story says:

"Industrial Development Minister Gary Lauk has

labelled the Sierra Club's request that he abandon the 726-acre Tilbury

Island industrial area in the Fraser River as 'elitist.'"

[ Page 2286 ]

That doesn't make a great deal of sense. We want to know the facts

and figures on what studies were done and, if no studies were done, why

none were do