[ Page 1149 ]

CONTENTS

An Act to Repeal the Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 49). Mr. Gibson. Introduction and first reading — 1149

Pacific North Coast Native cooperative Loan Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Levi. Introduction and first reading — 1149

Oral Questions

IBEW strike notice. Mr. Phillips — 1149

Criticism of Columbia River treaty. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1149

Export of surplus chips. Mr. Fraser — 1149

Grant to strata body. Hon. Mr. Nicolson answers — 1150

Lifting of mill rate limits. Mr. Curtis — 1150

Cost of Newton land purchase. Hon. Mr. Lorimer answers — 1150

Chlorine gas in Georgia Strait. Mr. L.A. Williams — 1150

Public service bargaining and contingency funds. Mr. Morrison — 1151

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

ICBC floor space in Royal Centre. Mr. Schroeder — 1151

General manager for Marguerite operation. Mr. Gorst — 1152

Granting of Kamloops request for industrial land. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1152

Bicycle provision on Burrard Inlet ferry. Mr. Gibson — 1152

B.C. aircraft testing inertial navigation system. Mr. Morrison — 1152

Committee of Supply: Department of Consumer Services estimates

On vote 33.

Hon. Ms. Young — 1153

Mr. Phillips — 1154

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1155

Hon. Ms. Young — 1155

Mr. Schroeder — 1156

Hon. Ms. Young — 1156

Mr. Chabot — 1156

Department of Economic Development estimates

On vote 34.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1157

Mr. Chabot — 1157

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1161

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1164

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1166

Mr. Phillips — 1168

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1168

Mr. Phillips — 1169

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1170

Mr. Fraser — 1171

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1174

Mr. Gibson — 1175

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1176

Mr. Smith — 1176

Mr. Chabot — 1179

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1184

Appendix — 1184

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the assembly this afternoon to join me in welcoming a group of secondary school students from Hope, with their teacher, Mr. Keith Lindstrom. I ask you to join me in welcoming them.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, accompanied by Frank and Audrey Gordon and Gladys Denham of North Vancouver, is Mr. Jesse Nakooka of Hawaii who has gladdened the hearts of thousands of British Columbians with his singing on the island of Maui at a place which in the nature of the non-commercial interests of this Legislature I will not name. I would ask the House to make him welcome and extend their aloha.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, today in the gallery from the beautiful country of Shuswap we have the people from Chase council. I would like to introduce to the House Mayor Brown, Alderman Beattie, Alderman Humphries, and Alderman Atkinson. I would like the House to welcome them to Victoria.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, it's a rare privilege and pleasure for me to have in the House one of my uncles watching the proceedings. I would like the House to join me in welcoming my uncle, Bob Nicolson.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon there will be a class from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School at Courtenay attending the session. They will be accompanied by their teacher who is a brother of the MLA for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). Mr. Ray Skelly will be with them. I would like the House to welcome them now please.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO REPEAL
THE MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 49, An Act to Repeal The Mineral Royalties Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PACIFIC NORTH COAST NATIVE
CO-OPERATIVE LOAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Levi presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative Loan Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

IBEW STRIKE NOTICE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — also as a director of British Columbia Hydro. Could the Minister confirm to the House that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has served 72-hour strike notice on B.C. Hydro.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): My information is not up to date, Mr. Speaker. It was my understanding that the union could very well do so. Whether that has, in fact, taken place…it may be so. I would have to check first.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister then advise the House tomorrow if this is so? Would he get himself up to date and advise the House?

CRITICISM OF COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Yesterday, at the very end of the question period, he replied to a question of mine. I'd like to ask a supplementary to it today. Did the concern over the adverse criticism of the Columbia River treaty, which the Minister told us yesterday was shown in the minutes of B.C. Hydro, find expression in any letter or document issuing instructions or suggesting instructions or directing advertising either for or against newspapers or radio stations critical of the treaty?

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

EXPORT OF SURPLUS CHIPS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. When the Premier was in the Cariboo

[ Page 1150 ]

about three weeks ago, he was asked by the forest industry there to allow the export of surplus chips. He replied that he would take it up with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources on his return to Victoria. My question to the Minister is: have you had discussions with the Premier about this policy?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been preliminary discussions and the matter is being actively looked at by the Forest Service.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When will you be announcing the new policy?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I suppose the proper answer is "in due course," Mr. Speaker. I should note that I'll be in the Cariboo next week and will meet with the local operators as well, and I will discuss the matter from their point of view before we make any decision.

GRANT TO STRATA BODY

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): A brief answer to the question asked by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) yesterday: $18,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister when this grant of $18,000 to the B.C. Association of Strata Corporations was handed over to them?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, the press release, Mr. Member, was dated June 5, and I think that it would be some time around that time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, may I ask as a further supplementary whether the office for which this grant was intended has been established yet?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, if you want some idea of how these funds were spent…or what you're leading up to on this….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The grant, Mr. Speaker, to refresh the Minister's memory, was for $18,000 to the B.C. Association of Strata Corporations to establish an office, and it was given last June, I guess. Fair enough. I just wonder whether the office has been established.

LIFTING OF MILL RATE LIMITS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs. With regard to section 206 of the Municipal Act, which among other things, Mr. Speaker, sets mill rate limitations for various types of municipalities, dealing with general purposes, debt and other classes: may I ask if the Minister has received requests from any municipality or the UBCM that the mill rate limits be lifted — that is, that the ceiling be taken off for the 1975 taxation year?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, we have received requests from the UBCM. I don't believe we have received any direct requests from any specific municipality. We will be presenting to the Legislature some legislation in regard to this problem.

COST OF NEWTON LAND PURCHASE

HON. MR. LORIMER: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands asked some time ago as to the cost of some land purchased in Newton. The total sum paid was $217,146.60, and that includes the land plus easements over two separate pieces of property.

LIFTING OF MILL RATE LIMITS

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary on the question I first raised. I thank the Minister for the answer to the other question. The Minister is telling the House, therefore that a number of municipalities see that ceiling looming this year; therefore, something must be done for this year?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, there will have to be something done this year. Some of them are at their maximum at the present time and they will be really strapped unless there's some action brought before the House to deal with this.

CHLORINE GAS IN GEORGIA STRAIT

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. With respect to the tank cars carrying caustic chlorine which were lost en route to Powell River, a press report this morning indicates that those tank cars have been located and there's some doubt as to whether they're to be raised. I wonder if the Minister could advise whether his department, in particular the Pollution Control Board, has made any studies to determine whether or not there is a danger of leakage of chlorine gas from those cars either now or in the future and whether his department will be taking any action with respect to the raising of those cars.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as the House no doubt is aware, we did request the federal government to continue their activities with respect to the search for those cars. The Member for

[ Page 1151 ]

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) joined with myself in making that request. So we're pleased that this activity has been productive.

I would have to take as notice the question of technical matters in relation to PCB.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could the Minister advise the House if any simple tests of water surrounding the area in which the tank cars were found have been done to see if there has been any leakage?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of any, Mr. Speaker. However, as the Members I'm sure are aware, it is an area of federal jurisdiction.

PUBLIC SERVICE
BARGAINING AND CONTINGENCY FUNDS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to the Provincial Secretary. I would like to say how pleased we are to see him back again and looking so well. Could the Minister advise the House if any bargaining contracts have been concluded with any of the civil service units and, if so, which ones they are?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Last week, Mr. Member, on the 13th, the last of the general union components was completed. I shall be making some comments tomorrow or Friday at the conclusion, as I promised some time ago, with the 13 components and the general union. All of the components in clause 4(b) — those are nurses and the healing arts — have been concluded a long time ago. That leaves us now with just the licensed professional group, and bargaining is continuing. I would not be entirely straightforward to the Member if I didn't say there were some difficulties.

MR. MORRISON: In view of the fact that we are in estimates at this moment and one of the very vital parts of the estimates is the supplementary funds required, could we ask the Provincial Secretary if he would file with the House as early as possible that information, because it is vital for our discussion?

HON. MR. HALL: I have no objection to filing anything in the House other than, as I say, the fact that most of it's filed already in the form of orders-in-council.

While the Members raise the point, I've taken the opportunity this morning of reading Hansard and seeing the debate of the opposition which is taking place on what is called contingent funds — salary increases, I really think the opposition is misleading itself and nobody else regarding the debate on that item. The contingent liabilities that are referred to in the estimates are frankly the same kind of thing that's been in the estimates for years and years and years, and must obviously cover that period of time following the completion of the contract which has been signed that the Member makes reference to.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the question raised was about these funds that are referred to in the estimates, and I think the answer would relate to that, I presume.

ICBC MONEY TO MOTOR VEHICLE BRANCH

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Transport and Communications. What contribution, grant or sum of money has ICBC allocated or will allocate to the motor vehicle branch for services rendered during the first year of operation of Autoplan?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It seems to me that I answered a question similar to that on the order paper last week. Yes, I'm quite sure I answered a question similar to that on the order paper, but I'll check and see what the answer is.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

ICBC FLOOR SPACE
IN ROYAL CENTRE

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the Minister of Transport and Communications in his role as president of ICBC. How many floors of the Royal Centre building are presently occupied by the Insurance Corp.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's either 10 or 11, I'm not sure which. That's been public information for a long time. I announced that. You just don't listen.

MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister also say how much of an increase this is over the space that was originally anticipated at the inception of the corporation?

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

MR. SCHROEDER: Has this expansion been provided for in the budget of the corporation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, everything's provided for in the budget. You know that.

MR. SCHROEDER: It would be nice to see the

[ Page 1152 ]

budget. What is the annual rent or lease cost of the space that is now being utilized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think if you'll check the Votes and Proceedings last year you'll find all of the information….

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

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

MR. SCHROEDER: Could you tell us what the amount is for the total space now being utilized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'll check that answer, but I'm quite sure that it included the additional space. But you know what most of it is. It's in the Journals and reports of last year. What is it? What was the figure?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

GENERAL MANAGER FOR
MARGUERITE OPERATION

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: Could he advise us…?

Interjections.

MR. GORST: You might learn something.

Interjections.

MR. GORST: Could the Minister advise of any up-to-date staffing requirements with the Princess Marguerite for the operation? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm very pleased that the question was asked, Mr. Speaker, (laughter) and I'm also pleased to announce that Mr. Harry Tyson, the former manager for B.C. Coastal Steamships, will be the new general manager with respect to the Marguerite operation in the Inner Harbour in Victoria. He is an outstandingly qualified gentleman in the field.

GRANTING OF KAMLOOPS
REQUEST FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. I promise you it has not been teed up in advance.

Could I ask him whether, in his capacity as a member of the Environment and Land Use Committee, he can tell us if the Kamloops city request to have 400 acres of what is now classified as farmland put to industrial use been granted or not? It was promised by today.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think this is with respect to the hog farm location on the eastern side of Kamloops. The matter was considered by the committee and the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) has raised the matter on numerous occasions with myself. I believe there will be a recommendation to cabinet. The actual determination of the category and the designation will have to be determined by order-in-council.

BICYCLE PROVISION ON
BURRARD INLET FERRY

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if any progress has been made with the very laudable thought of providing for bicycles on the new Burrard Inlet ferry.

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

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister like representations from bicycle-using groups? Would that be helpful to him?

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

B.C. AIRCRAFT TESTING
INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEM

MR. MORRISON: My question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could the Minister advise the House if the Department of Environment, which is a federal government department, has used a British Columbia aircraft to test a system? I think it's called an inertial navigation system.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not aware. It could have happened; we cooperate with everyone. I'll check and find out.

Orders of the day.

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

[ Page 1153 ]

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER SERVICES
(continued)

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

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman, I would like to give some further explanation on vote 33 and how it is made up, and also to offer an apology to the Members of the Committee.

Yesterday toward the end of the time for debate we were discussing vote 33 and its relationship to the following items: the number of permanent positions presently in the department; the number of so-called temporary-continuous positions which are expected to become permanent positions during this fiscal year; the number of new permanent positions for which application will be made; the amount provided for salary increases in respect to all positions arising, for example, from collective bargaining decisions. I agree that these items are at the heart of vote 33, and I wish to speak to them in more detail.

At the outset, however, I wish to tender my apology to this committee since I inadvertently misled its Members yesterday in discussing a couple of these items. I'm afraid that I was still feeling the after-effects of travel since I and my Deputy had just arrived the previous day from a conference and study trip to the Antipodes. There was certainly no intention on my part to mislead the Members; it was purely inadvertent. I will now turn to a clarification of my comments respecting vote 33.

Since the number of staff positions is important to vote 33, I would like to begin with the first item previously noted, namely permanent staff positions presently in effect in the department. These staff positions are listed under vote 32 and were established by order-in-council 210, dated January, 1974, which established 38 positions. Order-in-council 2259 of July 4 last year established positions for our debtors assistance division in the number of 22. Order-in-council 3116 of September of last year were positions that were transferred from the Department of Health to my department and the cemeteries division. There were four positions there.

Four other positions were contained in last year's estimates and were approved by the House. However, the order-in-council is still outstanding. These positions are considered as established positions and are now being filled or are filled. They consist of two trade rules officers and two clerk-stenos 2 in the Deputy Minister's office, for a total of four.

These make 68. These are the 68 positions that correspond with the figures listed in vote 32.

The temporary assistance in vote 32 provides for four part-time service aides in Victoria, two part-time consumer service aides in Vancouver, two part-time aides in Kamloops, two part-time aides in Prince George, two full-time consumer service assistants in Vancouver, two part-time clerks for distribution of information materials and our Pearson Hospital group who do the monitoring of advertising on radio/television and in the press.

There are additional amounts of $30,000 estimated for overtime, and an additional $15,000 of vacation relief, work overload and et ceteras.

Therefore our present staff is 68 people. We have on staff — if you want these outlined person by person, office by office or designation by designation — 15 temporary-continuous people who are now working with the department. They will become permanent employees and are included in vote 33.

In addition, we plan to recruit new staff during the coming year which we need because of the expanding nature of the department, including five positions for our new office that we are anticipating. This amounts to 13 people. So in addition to the 68, we have our temporary continuous, numbering 15 people, and the 13 people we intend to hire, which will bring the total department complement up to 96.

The salaries are broken down in this manner. The temporary-continuous salaries for staff are $128,362. Salaries for anticipated new staff positions are $173,488. The salary contingencies providing for salary increases due to collective bargaining agreements are as follows: for the staff now filling established positions, plus figures calculated for the temporary assistance, $1,009,624; for staff in the Minister's office, $50,296.

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

HON. MS. YOUNG: This is salary contingencies, because at the time we had no idea what….

MR. PHILLIPS: $1,009,624?

HON. MS. YOUNG: For staff now filling established positions, plus figures calculated for temporary assistance.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Well, just let me finish. For the planned new staff positions, salaries are estimated at $173,488, and for staff now considered temporary-continuous, $128,362, for a total of $1,361,760. A contingency of approximately 25 per cent of that amount is $350,833, and that brings the total vote, listing all of these items, of $652,683. I hope that clarifies it.

[ Page 1154 ]

In the contingency portion the $350,000, approximately, covers not only the collective bargaining increments; it would also take care of longevity increases, et cetera, and it would take care of those things that are of a contingent nature that you simply do not know are going to occur. So you always, as you know, lay aside sums for the unexpected problems that arise. That is what is included in those figures. I hope that explains it.

Once again, I render my apologies to the House because I did give them wrong information last night. By that hour of the evening my Deputy and myself were on tomorrow-at-noon time physically, so we weren't quite with it. Thank you.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to thank the Minister for her apologies and say that I am sorry that she wasn't feeling well. However, I imagine that the trip to down under was necessary. I presume it was necessary. I haven't heard really why it was necessary at this particular time while the House is in session. However, I am appreciative of her apology.

However, Mr. Chairman, if these figures were known prior to the estimates being tabled in this Legislature, and if the Minister and her Deputy knew that the staff was going to go to 96…. I accept her apology for misleading me last night when I asked specifically if she intended to hire during the coming year more than the 68 persons which are tabled in the estimates. I appreciate her apology for saying that she misled me at the time, but I was anxious to know before I asked the question if there were going to be more persons. Now her memory has come back, or at least she has gone further into her estimates.

However, if the Minister knows that she is going to increase by specific numbers of persons in her department and she knew it at the time that the estimates were being prepared…. Otherwise, she would not have been able to estimate the salary contingency in the amount of $652,683. Now the Minister has just outlined to me that she knew when the estimates were being prepared in order to determine this figure. I must say that it is an accurate figure, because it comes right out to the odd dollar. It isn't just a rounded-out figure. So I can see that she has done some work on it. But I have to question, Mr. Chairman, the fact that if this is going to be procedure here, we are not going to be able to debate accurately these estimates.

She has gone to the trouble of increasing her staff last year as laid out by positions from 45 to 68. I just have to say that the estimates tabled in this House…and asking us to vote on a salary contingency when she was already aware that she was going to increase the number of persons in her staff is misleading to this Legislature. It was pointed out by the Premier and also by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who did not have a salary contingency but was able to develop the increased salaries for each person in his department…. Because he is a chartered accountant he didn't go along with this figure of having a contingency. He was able to work it out. But I would suggest that these estimates are completely misleading.

I would have to suggest and request that the Minister withdraw her estimates and table before this House her true intentions as to what she has outlined before the House. This is the reason that we had to question this tremendous amount. We were saying last night that if these salary contingencies are in this amount without an increased staff, it would figure out to be a 65 per cent salary contingency for the coming year. There are wage adjustments made in the number of persons.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I am greatly disappointed in this Minister in the way that she has presented her estimates. Now I realize that she is a new Minister and she has got a new department and she probably has a lot of work, but I have no other alternative but to say that the estimates are misleading, very misleading. The Minister knew at the time she was making up her estimates that she was going to hire X number of people, and she even outlined to the Legislature here how many and where they would be. Yet why were these positions not outlined under vote 32 in the general administration?

Why were these new staff positions trying to be covered up in a general hocus-pocus vote of $652,000? We have been told in this House before that the salary contingency was to allow for salary adjustments, and that has always been the policy in this House.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, for certain small increases in staff, particularly in the Department of Highways where you're talking about day labour, but we're talking about an increase from 68 members to 96 members. Now that's not just a small contingency increase of one or two members where you might run into a situation you couldn't foresee. But an increase of 28 members is nearly…well, it's well over 25 per cent increase in the number of persons to be employed by this department. Are we going to have to take for granted that this is going to be prevalent throughout the remainder of the estimates in salary contingencies — that it's not allowing just for the increase in salaries but that numbers of persons in the civil service are going to be hidden in this estimate?

We'd like to know from time to time, and we'd like to figure out what the increase is going to be in the number of persons employed by the government. If the increases for the coming year in the number of persons that a Minister intends to hire are going to be

[ Page 1155 ]

hidden in a contingency vote such as we have here, then the House is not getting the true facts. As I've said before, why discuss the estimates if we're not going to know the truth about the estimates when they're presented? That's why we have a Legislature. That is why we have a committee of supply. The purpose of the Committee of Supply is to vote money but to vote money to a Minister we must also have accurate information as to what the money is going to be used for. I think this is getting further and further away from our democratic system of having the Legislature vote on Committee of Supply.

Last year we had over — I could stand corrected on this — I believe it was a sum of over $400 million voted to orders-in-council, expenditures of which never come close to this Legislature. I'm just wondering what direction we're heading in. I think it's only fair that the Minister withdraw this vote 33 and bring in a supplement — a new estimate — broken down to the information that she has given us here in the House or, barring that, at least table the information or distribute it to the opposition Members so we can take time to have a look at it and question it.

I wrote down some of the information, but maybe we should have a recess at the present time while the Minister provides us with copies of that information so we can intelligently look at this vote. I would like to ask the Minister if she and the House would agree to a short adjournment while she photostats copies of this information so that we can intelligently look at it. If she doesn't agree to this I have no other alternative but to think that she doesn't want to provide us with accurate information and that she is trying to get us to vote on a salary contingency which we do not thoroughly understand.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I want to thank the Minister for the information which she provided to the committee today. I think it's fairly clear, but I would like to make certain I understand the category of temporary-continuous — 15 people you have in that category, Madam Minister. May I ask a series of questions? First of all, the 15 employees in the temporary-continuous category: do you have them now? That's question No. 1. Last year's establishment of 45, in fact, was increased by 15, and that's a total of 60 people, including your establishment and the temporary-continuous.

Question No. 2. In arriving at the figure of 68 established personnel in your department, are you taking those people who were temporary-continuous and moving them into fully established positions in the department?

Thirdly, having increased your establishment to 68, will you still require to have people in the temporary-continuous category? If that's so, I'd like to know why. It seems to me that temporary-continuous is something a little less than permanent, and if we're slowly increasing the department in this way, then it seems to me we're entitled to have some details as to the specific tasks that these people in temporary-continuous undertake. I'm not talking about temporary assistance. I understand that category quite clearly. It's the temporary-continuous. Why are they not listed in your department by categories so we know the positions they fill?

Lastly, the new staff of 15. Am I correct that this is a plan that the department has? But unless and until Treasury Board approves your plan he will not have the authority to engage these additional 13 new staff, open the new office and undertake all the expenditures that are affected with that particular task. In other words, it's possible that Treasury Board might decide not to permit you to go ahead with your plan at all or with your full plan. They may somehow or other tailor it down. The 13 new staff are only there for a forecast of what you believe you will require and hope you will get.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Hon. Member, I believe the first question was: are the 15 people now employed? Yes, they are now employed. They consist of people who were recruited as the need for more help became evident in the department in the past 12 months, and we intend to ask that these positions be formally established by order-in-council in the very near future. I can give you an example. In my own office I have a clerk-typist, temporary-continuous. She is there simply because my office receives so much mail that we just required another person in my particular office.

We have additional assistance in payroll. We have a clerk 2 in the mail department in administrative services. We have a typist-receptionist in the administrative services. We have a clerk-steno in our consumer protection branch. We have a clerk-steno 4 in our trade practices branch in Vancouver, and five additional clerk-typists 2 in our trade practices branch in the department and three clerks 2 in our consumer protection branch.

I think I answered the second question: are we moving the 15 into permanent positions? Yes, this is what we expect to do by order-in-council. Therefore, they will no longer be temporary-continuous. We do not anticipate at this time that there will be need for additional temporary-continuous. However, in all honesty I cannot preclude the possibility. In other words, none of us know what the future will hold. We do not know if other legislation will be assigned to the department from other departments. It comes to mind that some legislation that may be coming may require the hiring of additional staff to, perhaps, keep

[ Page 1156 ]

the records of something of that nature or act as a liaison person under that specific legislation, such as our cemeteries people do in relation to the Cemeteries Act.

The new positions which we hope to fill that do not exist now and have not been filled, but fall under this vote, are partly to staff the office that we hope to establish later on in this year — our new field office — in addition to beefing up the trade practices part of the department. It has become very evident to us that we need additional staff in this area. We need additional investigators; we need an audit accountant. This we found in our investigations, that it is very important to have a qualified accountant to be able to look at the business records during investigations that come up from time to time.

We need a director to handle the administration of the department. At the present time the Deputy Minister is doing this, and it's getting to the point where it's becoming onerous inasmuch as the staff has increased. There are problems regarding leasing of equipment, leasing of premises, paying the bills, carrying out all of the accounting functions of the department. Even just going down and looking over the furniture for a new office, arranging for phones to be put in a new office is a full-time job for one person. This is what we need. We need somebody to take over the day-to-day administration of the department, and a stenographer to assist that person.

In the matter of regulations dealing with the various sections of the Trade Practices Act and also other legislation, we need a person who will be very conversant and will help design regulations for industry to use as guidelines in their dealings in consumer matters. I think I have pretty well covered it all.

We are beefing up our education branch too, bringing in additional people there. We found educational aspects have really become a very important thrust of the department. I think the response we've received from the public and also from the educational community is a very big plus. They are so eager that we just simply need more people to assist them in getting the information not only to students but to teachers and to the general community, to even night school people. So we are beefing up that department too. I think that covers it.

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

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, to the Minister: is it reasonable to assume, then, that 96 is to be the entire complement of people in the department? Of the 68 which are there, 15 which are to be transferred from temporary to continuous, plus 13 new, makes 96 the total. The areas in which these people are to be employed have been clearly stipulated here today.

I would like the Minister to consider the fact that we are having an expansion of the community resources programme in the province. The forerunners of these community resources boards, of course, are the community services in the area. I am thinking particularly of one in Abbotsford which has just recently been given the green light to go into an election procedure to constitute a bona fide community resource board. In my correspondence with the community services of Abbotsford they tell me that one of the services they wish to provide through the community resources board is consumer protection.

The question that I have to the Minister then is: has she considered these expansions, because Abbotsford is only one of them? The intention of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is to have the entire province blanketed with these community resources boards, each of which has the same goal of providing consumer protection. Will this require additional staff not anticipated in this number of 96?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, in these matters we have been working with the Department of Human Resources. In one case which I mentioned yesterday we asked the local Human Resources board to recommend a person or to evaluate two citizens groups in a particular area and give us their recommendation as to which should be funded. We fund local groups on a six-month basis, and they are audited for that reason. They are kept on a bit of a short string so that we have a good audit on them at all times. This would be the way it would be done.

We are working, I think, on another situation wherein we perhaps will be using a desk in one of the facilities of a local Human Resources board. In other words, we may fund a person under our funding programme or grants programme; we may fund a local person a half a day, a week or three half-days a week, or something of this nature, depending on the needs of that community. They will work, perhaps, in the vicinity, in the same building or very close by the Resources board. So we are working with the department that way.

I quite appreciate the idiocy, really, of spreading many departments all over one community when it could be of greater benefit to the community if they were all centralized. I think that is the objective of this government; to decentralize as far as putting them out of the lower mainland and the lower part of Vancouver Island and getting out into the total province, and, at the same time, not having people run from this end of town to that end of town to the third end of town to try and get a service.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few words, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the

[ Page 1157 ]

Minister for correcting the information which was conveyed to us last night. I attempted on a couple of occasions to extract the information which she has revealed to us today. One of the things which disturbed me was the shockingly erroneous information which was being conveyed to the Minister last night in what appeared to be an attempt to hide what actually represented this substantial allocation of $652,000. As the information progressed it became more ridiculous, absolutely more ridiculous. It became apparent to us — if you read the Blues — that it was an attempt to hide just what was represented in this $652,000. Oh, I'm on the…no, $652,000.

I'm getting some bum information behind me. (Laughter.) But at least I check my figures again….

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

MR. CHABOT: I think that there should be full disclosure as to what the staffing of your department is. There is no reason, in my point of view, that temporary staff cannot be included under vote 32 rather than being concealed or buried under salary contingencies. All I do want to say is that I hope…. I want to thank the Minister again as I did last night for her expansion on the activities of her department and the full disclosure — thank her for taking my suggestion that she go to bed last night and have a little rest, think it over and then come back and give us some answers today, which she did. I hope that when she brings her estimates forward next year we won't find the variety of positions — 30 positions — that we found buried in salary contingencies, and they'll be fully disclosed under the general administration of her department.

Vote 33 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

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

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for its overwhelming support.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: Every time I stand in my place we hear the same tired old jokes by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. He can't think of anything new, Mr. Chairman, and neither can his party.

I stand only in my place, before the opposition Members take their place in this committee, to introduce to the House 49 students who are visiting here from that great area of Vancouver, Vancouver-Centre — the West End — 49 students from King George High School. They're with their teacher, Mr. Buyan.

Mr. Chairman, these students are here to see the opposition in action at the committee level. They want to see how the opposition asks intelligent questions about the estimates that have been presented to them. I indicated to the students not to be disappointed or too unhappy about the democratic process if the questions were not that intelligent. Here is an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for the opposition to demonstrate otherwise.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, needless to say I'm rather startled at the fact that the Minister hasn't seen fit to give us a review of the activities of his department last year. I guess the few words he's given us have indicated very clearly the kind of activity that has taken place in his department for the last year.

Interjection.

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

But as I review the estimates of expenditure for the department, it's the only department of government that doesn't reflect any activity. There's a very minimal increase in dollar allocation to this department as compared to the other portfolios. There's been an increase from $4.3 million to $5 million for a portfolio that is basically the nerve centre of the economy — of the activity of this government in its attempt to create economic opportunities and employment for people in this province. All we see is a minimal amount of increase in his estimates.

When one looks at the estimates, one has to conclude that the vast expenditure in this department is in general administration. We find that general administration takes up the majority of the dollars in his department. It increases from $1.9 million to $2.8 million. When you take into consideration the salary contingencies of $479,000, we find that $3.3 million of his budget of $5 million is made up in the field of general administration.

Salaries: that's where the activity is in his portfolio, Mr. Chairman. We see a small allocation for programmes and grants, a small allocation which has decreased — an allocation of $1.5 million. So with the Minister's office, along with his general administration and salary contingencies, we find that $3.5 million looks after the lavishness which the Minister enjoys in his office, looks after the flacks who work for him, looks after the salaries of civil

[ Page 1158 ]

servants, and looks after the paper churning within his department. I'll have more to say about the paper churning that comes out of that Department of Economic Development.

You know, if the government keeps taking away from this portfolio there will be absolutely nothing left. All we'll have is a Minister and his Department of Economic Development Act. That's all we'll have. We even see a bill presented on the floor of the Legislature this afternoon again taking away additional responsibilities from that Minister over there.

I don't know what is happening. Why they don't trust him with responsibility is beyond my belief, because he projects the image of brightness in this House when he talks, yet we see this practical phase-out of this department. This has been taken away from him. The matter of the data processing centre has been taken out of his department. The agent-general's office in London has been taken out of his office. So all we have is the Minister and his Act. That's basically all that is left in that portfolio — plus the dollars for the general administration and salary contingencies.

In talking about the Minister and his little Act, one has to look at section 5 of the Act. It says:

"The Minister shall make and submit to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council an annual report respecting the work performed by the department" — maybe he is embarrassed to present it — "and the report shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly during the first session in the year next following the end of the fiscal year for which the report is made."

Despite the fact that we have asked the Minister on numerous occasions to present his annual report in the assembly, we've been unable to convince him that we have a right to examine the activities of his department prior to the debate of his estimates. But no, the Minister seems to relish the idea that the Members don't get the report prior to debate on his estimates.

It suggests to me that the Minister or his department has contempt for the Legislature when they won't present that wafer-thin report in this House. I'm not asking the Minister to present a report — we know full well that there is no way he possibly could, with the lack of activity in his department — such as the Attorney-General presented the other day, a report of 320 pages. All we are asking him to present is the little, paper-thin report similar to the one presented in 1973, and that report has 16 pages.

Page 1 says it is the annual report.

Page 2 is blank.

Page 3 has a picture of the Minister and a short statement by the Deputy.

Page 4 shows a picture of some silos and tells you where the office is, British Columbia House, for which we don't see…well, that was in 1973. We are so far behind in reports from that department now we still see B.C. House in that final report but it's not in the estimates today.

Half of page 3 is a picture of silos. The other half tells you the head office is in Victoria and that they have an office in Vancouver.

Page 4 shows the organization of the department. It shows the Minister as the head, and it shows the various components of the department.

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

Page 7 talks briefly about the economy.

Page 8 has a picture occupying part of the page, and in large print says "Industrial expansion." Page 8 talks about industrial expansion in a minimal amount.

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

Page 10 is half pictures and it talks more about Expo '74.

Page 11 again more pictures and it talks about general affairs.

Page 12 talks about the operations.

Page 13 has about four short paragraphs, and three-quarters of the page is covered by pictures.

Page 14 gives us some statistics. Even though he is no longer responsible for the data processing centre, we still get statistics.

Page 15 talks about some of the publications that the government issues from time to time.

Page 16 talks about the now removed B.C. House, of which half is made up with a picture.

Now it's not that difficult for the Minister to table a report which is 16 pages long. Some pages are blank and some are exclusively pictures. Now that's not asking too much by the Members of this House to have the Minister table his annual report, which says very little.

There's no justifiable reason, in my opinion, why this report couldn't have been tabled prior to the estimates of the Minister. The information was contained in the 1973 report; it shouldn't take too much to put out a 1974 report.

I had high hopes for this Minister when he first came into the House. He appeared extremely aggressive prior to his being appointed to the cabinet. He's collapsed completely since he's taken over that portfolio. He's dissipated my hopes for industrial expansion in this province. From the time he became Minister there's been nothing accomplished, absolutely nothing. He talks about the great reorganization of his portfolio at the time he was appointed. He issued many press releases telling us of the great reorganization of the department that was taking place.

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

[ Page 1159 ]

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health says "be serious." I've never been more serious in my life. That Minister's an absolute failure. He spells chaos in this province, and I'm absolutely serious about that. This Minister has done absolutely nothing since he's taken over his responsibilities in this portfolio. He's done nothing to attract secondary industry in British Columbia. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister's a dismal failure. That's what he is.

Here's a portfolio that should be the focal point of job creation in British Columbia, of economic activity in British Columbia. Yet we get absolutely nothing from that Minister. Even though there hasn't been a substantial increase in the allocation in his portfolio, there's still $5 million there. I think the people of British Columbia have the right to expect something from that $5 million, and I assure you they're getting absolutely nothing from that Minister and from that department on the expenditure of $5 million.

He talked, in the early days of his Ministry…. It will be short-lived too. On July 27, 1973, he talked about the great thrust in northern British Columbia. He had this to say:

"The provincial government is extending the thrust of northern development to the northeastern sector of the province and will concentrate on expanding and diversifying economic activity in the Peace River area.

"Mr. Lauk said he is visiting the Peace River area in order to get to know community leaders on a personal basis. Departmental staff will visit the Sukunka coal deposit site."

You remember that one? You remember the Sukunka coal, the great hope, the great vision they had about development of the Sukunka coal deposit. We know what happened to Sukunka: it collapsed. Lack of encouragement from that Minister, and that department over there….

He talked about the staff visiting the coal deposit site, which is dissipated, which has disappeared at the expense of jobs in British Columbia.

Then he goes on:

"'As you know, the government has announced the railway agreement with the cooperation of the federal government on rail freight rates for the carriage of freight for both Eurocan and Can-Cel. Now that substantial agreements have been made which will help this area develop, we'll be looking at other regions.'"

In other words, the northwest was already in place, that great economic development that was going to take place in the northwest. The Minister had set the machinery in action. The machinery had never even been lubricated.

The Minister was going to occupy himself with economic development in other areas of the province. He was going to go to the Peace River. He'd already finalized the future economic expansion of the northwest of British Columbia; he was going to move to the northeast.

Well, there was little necessity in the Minister going to the Peace River country, because he'd done absolutely nothing in the northwest part of the province; and that appears to be what's happened in the Peace River country as well. He says that the Peace River area report indicates potential for economic development in several areas. Studies will be undertaken — more of those studies — and made available to the public, of potentials of forestry, agriculture, mining, oil and gas exploration, tourism.

"At the request of the Northern Development Council, the Hon. Phyllis Young." Well, that's another item.

But the Minister talked about the potential in the Peace, that studies would take place. Studies have taken place, massive studies have taken place in the northwest, yet we see very little activity there. And there is concern.

The Minister talked about the great DREE. I remember how proud the Minister was when he stood in this assembly and talked about the DREE agreement that had been negotiated with the national government. They were well on their way to expansion of secondary industry in British Columbia. Oh, yes, this was the great thing. Oh, yes, he came in here and he was very boastful about it — the great general agreement has been signed.

But all we had to do was look into the terminology into the wording of the general development agreement and we came to the conclusion that it was necessary to sign subsidiary agreements. I don't know whether to this day there have been subsidiary agreements signed. I know that British Columbia was the last province in Canada to sign subsidiary agreements with the national government.

Maybe that's the reason why Mr. Jamieson came to British Columbia — to drive that Minister out of his office, to get some kind of economic development going in British Columbia. Certainly there was no activity or no finalization of any agreements on the visits that the Minister made to Ottawa. It was necessary for a federal Minister to come to British Columbia to get that Minister to get moving on DREE. I hope the Minister, when he stands in his place in due course, will tell us whether at last the last province in Canada has signed a subsidiary agreement with the national government.

Oh, he talked about the agreement in principle — the joint transportation development programme for the northwestern part of British Columbia. That programme appears to have been put in mothballs. We hear nothing further on what's going on in the northwestern part of the province. There were high hopes for railway line extensions up there that would

[ Page 1160 ]

bring on economic development up there, but nothing has happened. All these rail line extensions, the rail development programme that was mentioned in this agreement with the national government, have not brought on any kind of activity in the northwestern part of British Columbia.

There is concern up there with the lack of activity on the part of your department and the fact that you have a vision that you are unable to fulfil. All you do is sign some general agreement or some agreement in principle on transportation and that's the end of it. You have massive studies of area development and then there's no action.

The mayors from the northern part of British Columbia are concerned with the lack of activity through your department and through your government.

The mayor from Prince Rupert is concerned. He says that in 1973 it was forecast that an announcement would be made soon on federal/provincial projects for the northwest, to include hydro-electric dams, three new towns, at least five new sawmills, a pulp mill and vast mineral resource development with a new network of railway lines to service the complex. The forecast claimed that 20,000 new jobs would be created over the 100,000 sq. mi. area. There was a secret report which was leaked out of the government department which talked about the massive development of the north two years ago, yet nothing has happened in the past two years.

Despite the fact that in British Columbia our unemployment at this time is over 100,000, there's no activity from your department to alleviate the problem that certain people in our society are facing — those over 100,000 which are presently unemployed. What happened?

What has happened to the government's announcement to link the BCR with the CP or the CN between Ashcroft and Clinton? Is that a dead issue as well? That was a cost-sharing programme between the national government and the provincial government. That appears to have died a natural death as well — a lot of studies, but no action.

The Minister issues a lot of press releases. He issued one in which he was concerned about the price of natural gas in Dawson Creek. He raised his voice in cabinet to object to the massive increases in hydro rates in this province. He's concerned for one little community, but he's not concerned about the overall well-being of the economic development of this province, where we found that Hydro, just a few months ago, increased its commercial rates 18 per cent, residential 20 per cent, and to bulk users 70 per cent. Does the Minister feel that these massive increases in hydro rates will be detrimental in attracting secondary industry to British Columbia? He hasn't had anything to say about that.

We have enough drawbacks in British Columbia in attracting secondary industry without the government creating more. You better believe you're creating more by these exorbitant rates that you established for B.C. Hydro. No, all we've had from that Minister over there is a series of press releases, attacks against Ottawa, attacks against the eastern provinces, but nothing constructive as far as job creation in the Province of British Columbia is concerned.

I want to express my regret at this time at the departure of the former Deputy Minister, Mr. Hempsall, from your department. Mr. Hempsall, in my opinion, made a great contribution in this province in the short period of time that he was Deputy Minister and Associate Deputy Minister in the Department of Economic Development.

I am wondering whether the Minister can give us some information in relationship to the steel study that's going on and the expenditure of — I don't know if the figure has been upwardly revised or not — I believe it was originally $1.2 million for the steel study, the joint study between the KKK Co. of Japan and the Department of Economic Development. I am wondering if the Minister will level with this Legislature as well and tell us whether he really believes that British Columbia is an economically viable place to establish a steel industry.

I am sure that the Minister has taken into consideration the possibility of environmental damage by the establishment of a steel mill in the province. I hope that there's no intention on the part of any other countries that are involved in the possibility of establishing a steel smelter in this province of exporting pollution to British Columbia. We don't want pollution in this province. We know full well — and I believe the Minister is aware, or I'm sure his Deputy can inform him — that there is a fair amount of activity, a fair amount of expansion, as far as steel manufacturing is concerned in our two sister provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I am wondering whether the Minister will talk to us about the possibilities of establishing a copper smelter in British Columbia. You know, we have an abundance of copper in this province. Despite the fact that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is attempting to destroy the mining industry in British Columbia, we still have an abundance of copper. The Minister could probably tell us what kind of progress is taking place as far as copper is concerned.

The government, in its manifesto to the people in 1972, talked about the export of our raw materials. It talked about the export of copper concentrates. They were concerned about the export of jobs. I think it's opportune that I should point out some of the statements they made at that time. They talked about an economy for people. They thought the need for secondary industry was critical. "We must stop

[ Page 1161 ]

exporting jobs abroad."

Well, it's very nice to say those kind of things — that we should stop exporting jobs. But the Minister knows full well that it's to the well-being of the economy and the well-being of the forest industry of this province that we're presently exporting wood chips to an unparalleled degree. Never before has British Columbia exported more wood chips than are being exported under that government that professes to be against the export of our raw materials. Yet, thank God, it's helping — in my opinion — the forest industry in British Columbia.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth at once. You must be consistent. Don't attempt to mislead the people of British Columbia by suggesting that you're opposed to the export of wood chips; yet your government is exporting more wood chips than have ever been exported from this province since its creation. Never before have we seen so many wood chips leaving this province. And, no doubt, that particular export will increase, will accelerate, in the months ahead.

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

"But establishing secondary industry need not mean handing over control to foreign companies. It need not mean providing public subsidies for private profits out of the taxpayers' pockets. We have the means to do the job ourselves if we tap the vast revenues generated by our resources."

Well, we know what you've done with your resource wealth as far as mining is concerned. Your government, of which you are a part, has virtually destroyed the mining industry in this province.

Then in your manifesto to the people, you said:

"As an immediate step an NDP government will introduce a resource companies information Act to ensure full financial disclosure by resource firms. The Act will provide the information needed to significantly increase revenues from our resources."

Well, that Act certainly hasn't been introduced by that government since it's been in office.

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

MR. CHABOT: My colleague from Cariboo tells me that the green light's on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.

MR. CHABOT: I've hardly started to get into the material that I have before me.

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

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister asks when I am going to start. But I think I've posed a few questions to the Minister at this time, and maybe he'd like to respond or have someone else take his place. However, I'll have lots more to say at another time. The Minister knows full well that I'm brief with my questions, and I hope the Minister is as brief as I am with my questions as he is with his answers.

HON. MR. LAUK: As I have said many times, it's always a delight to see the Member for Columbia River in his place. His speeches are a clear victory of form over content. He used last year's speeches, last year's press releases. The man doesn't even go to the morning paper anymore. This is the kind of research that we have had from this Social Credit opposition.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: This is the kind of opposition they give us. The Ottawa Journal has printed an article on the burnbling B.C. Socreds. It paled the image of old W.A.C. Boy! a truer article has never been written, and I recommend it to every British Columbian. Read the facts about this opposition. Bumblers! We provide them with research assistants; we provide them with everything the taxpayer can provide an opposition with to do its jobs. And the Member for Columbia River comes in here with a couple of pale yellow press clippings. He's not even up to date; he doesn't know what's going on.

It's not the job of a Minister to expand his department where he does not feel it's necessary to expand it to cover more work. It reminds me of an exhibit that was down in the exposition in Seattle that had a do-nothing machine, a great big machine with cranks and steam coming out and so on, very much like the speeches from the Hon. Member. But that's not the point of the exercise. In departments where personnel is required to serve the people of this province, expansion should and has taken place. In my department we have expanded on a professional basis — the economists and analysts we think are necessary to provide the service to the public of this province and to the people represented by its government.

I have the annual report which I am going to ask leave of the House to table when the committee rises. I am sorry that by law it's not required until next year, Mr. Member. You should read your Act and you should know that. As a courtesy to this House we have pulled out all the stops and prepared the annual report in this session.

The Member was a former cabinet Minister, Mr. Chairman, and he's talking about data processing. Data processing fills out the cheques. He's talking about statistics through the department of statistics

[ Page 1162 ]

and data processing together. He doesn't know that there's no connection. He hasn't got a clue what data processing is all about, and he was the Minister of Labour while this was going on. Talk about research!

Again, like the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), he places the downturn in the entire economy on my shoulders. Again, I'm flattered. I really think….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace River on a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish the Minister wouldn't make allegations before I've had an opportunity to speak in his estimates.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: That surprises me, Mr. Chairman, because I wouldn't think the Member would rise in his place on a frivolous interruption.

Placing the responsibility of the chaos on my shoulders, as is described previously in the budget speech debate…. I was amazed to hear from the Member for South Peace River that it was my responsibility. So I phoned down to the White House and I asked to speak to Mr. Ford. I got the janitor and I told them who I was, and they never knew who I was. And I said: "Don't you realize that I am responsible for the economic chaos in the world today? I've got to speak to the president about this."

What utter nonsense! What absolute nonsense! We know why the lumber market has failed in this province. If you had been reading my real speeches instead of looking at old, yellowed press clippings, you'd know that I predicted a year ago that unless we diversify our markets for lumber products in this province we would meet this thing time and time again. It has happened in the past in the previous administration. I would not blame the previous Minister of Industrial Development (Mr. Skillings) for the economic chaos. I wouldn't blame him for anything. I wouldn't blame him for anything except that he was a close friend of the Premier. That's all I blame him for.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: And here he is again, the armchair lawyer over there, chirping away.

But what is going on today that didn't go on yesterday? That's the way you should look at it. Don't ask for the impossible, Mr. Chairman, through to the Member. What you have to picture is what happened before. Ralph Loffmark promised us a copper smelter. Robert Bonner talked about a copper smelter. Waldo Skillings promised a copper smelter.

And they took yours. The chamber of commerce, the mayor and municipality of Frankfurt were waiting for Ralph Loffmark to get off a plane and see them on his trade mission, and he never showed up. He stopped off in Cairo.

That's the quality of industry ministers that the previous administration had.

Since 1896 in this province, they have been talking about a steel mill. Within months of my appointment I went to Japan and secured an agreement by which the first stages of the establishment of steel production in this province could start — within the first few months. And they've been talking about it in this province since 1896.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: Copper smelting. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) stood in his place in the budget speech debate and said that so long as this government was in power, there would be no copper smelter.

MR. FRASER: Right!

HON. MR. LAUK: I asked him then and I ask him now: will you stake your seat on it? Will you resign if there is a copper smelter started within the first or second term of this administration? Will you stake your seat on it?

MR. FRASER: You come and run against me!

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

HON. MR. LAUK: This Member makes a statement and is not willing to back it up by putting his seat on it.

Mr. Chairman, when I took this portfolio, I went immediately to the research division and I said: "Could you provide me with the statistics on copper and coal supply, on mineral supplies, the analysis and so on?"

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

MR. CHABOT: That's an old speech.

HON. MR. LAUK: They said: "I'm sorry, you're going to have to talk to the Japanese. They know more about what minerals are in the ground."

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

MR. CHABOT: What an old speech.

HON. MR. LAUK: They had ancient statistics. That was the kind of research gathering that was

[ Page 1163 ]

going on in this province. Private industry and government did not have the information upon which they could make even the slightest economic decisions.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: We've commenced a programme of investigations and surveys which are providing all departments of government with this kind of information.

They talk about cooperation with the federal government. Mr. Chairman, the budget the federal government has for the Province of British Columbia is very, very minimal. I'll be as polite as I can to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I think the Minister is sincere, but I think his colleagues who depend upon the political power base of Ontario and Quebec call the tune, and that tune is: "The money goes elsewhere, not B.C." In spite of that fact, I am not willing to wash my hands of the DREE programme. I am not willing to do that. I am willing to try and try again to get a fair share of federal money in this province.

I met with the Minister, whom I consider a sincere gentleman. We discussed the principles involved in the GDA agreement mentioned by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He agreed that more quick action should be taken on the part of his officials…

MR. CHABOT: And you.

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

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

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the stumbling block.

HON. MR. LAUK: Secondly, he agreed that provincial priorities should prevail and he has so instructed his officials. I hope to see subsidiary agreements signed soon.

Now let's not pretend that the federal government is going to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into this province. They didn't before and they're not today, but we'll get whatever we can, Mr. Chairman. We will try and plough through the federal red tape to bring it on the table here in B.C. where it belongs.

It is particularly interesting to hear about how hydro rates, particularly for natural gas, are discouraging industry. It was the policy of this government to conserve a precious, non-renewable, natural resource of natural gas in this province. We felt that the industrial rates were too low and the rates have been raised. That is a conservation measure that even the opposition cannot argue with. In spite of the raises, it is still the cheapest natural gas supply anywhere in the world. It will be available to industry that wishes to establish in British Columbia. It is still an attractive energy choice.

It is difficult to argue with the Hon. Member who treats the estimates in such a superficial manner. He looks at the basic figures, he doesn't even look to see what item number is attached to each one. He just says a round figure and he says that Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative goes to some other Minister, and this goes to another Minister, and I'm not to be trusted, and so on. The actual expenditures in this department have increased about 50 per cent on the kinds of services that we are trying to bring to the business community and other branches of government. The trade mission programme is successful because it is a trade mission programme that is designed to sign contracts and not go on a cocktail circuit.

MR. CHABOT: Duplication.

HON. MR. LAUK: Incoming buyers are communicated with in our department for the first time. They are linked up with manufacturers and sellers in British Columbia. For the first time, we are providing that kind of system. But I don't think I should trouble the Hon. Member with the facts. He's not interested in them because his arguments are so superficial.

Talk about wood chips. I think any grade 8 social studies student would know that when the lumber market is down you still have to forest logs. No one pretends….

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

HON. MR. LAUK: He says "a double standard," Mr. Chairman. He wants it both ways; the government doesn't. He wants to say you can't have it one way without the other. You can have it both ways because that's what the facts of life are — both ways.

When the lumber market is up, the Minister of Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) should insist that logs be sawed and that lumber be produced and that we add value to the resource. When the lumber market is down, because it's a renewable resource, we should get the best possible return for the people of British Columbia, which means we have to export wood chips. That's obvious; that makes sense. We should have more pulp mills in this province and make more pulp and paper. We hope to see that soon, too, so that we don't have to export as much wood chips

[ Page 1164 ]

during a slump in the lumber market.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: I've argued on several occasions and I'll argue again: the point of the exercise is to diversify this economy. That point was missed entirely by the previous administration for 20 years. When other jurisdictions in other provinces with the same resource base were taking different directions, this government was the giveaway government, the sellout government, the most conspicuous sellout government in North America. It didn't take any steps to diversify the economy. Now a handful of years after our election they're calling upon us and blaming us for the lack of diversification in the economy. What utter and complete nonsense! I don't think they believe it. I know they don't believe it.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the different programmes of this department speak for themselves. The opposition Members obviously don't want to look at them; they want to make superficial comments on them and read old press releases.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I don't know on whom the fine little Minister is modeling his technique for speaking but it seems like it may well be the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). But he certainly isn't doing as good a job as the Member for Columbia River in that particular technique. I suggest that the next time he gets to his feet he adopt a more factual approach, because he really didn't do a very good job.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to go into two specific proposals for industrial development in the Province of British Columbia which the Premier has talked about and which our fine little Minister has talked about: a steel mill and the oil refinery.

I understand from what I've heard of reports out of Ottawa today that the Premier has talked of the refinery and has said that $350 million will be put into this. I don't know how he gets the figure $350 million. If he intends to have this refinery at the level to take over from the existing refineries on Burrard Inlet, the figure has to be closer to $1 billion, not $350 million. But the amount we can discuss later.

I'd like to discuss a couple of things in terms of first principles. Mr. Chairman, if you're going to have a new oil refinery in British Columbia, you have to have the raw materials to make the thing work. You need crude oil. This seems a very obvious fact, yet it seems to have escaped some of those in government. Where can we get crude oil, the feed stock for a British Columbia refinery?

In B.C. at the present time we are producing less than 50 per cent of the oil that we currently use in our refineries as they exist at the present time. We import into the province, essentially from Alberta, more than the amount that we get out of our British Columbia oil wells. Therefore, there is a substantial shortfall and any new refinery would require this raw material, this feed stock — and that's crude oil.

I was in Alberta for a very short period during the last provincial election. I shouldn't call it the provincial election; I should call it the provincial coronation of Peter Lougheed. In that exercise that went on for a few weeks in Alberta, Lougheed came on strong on the need for Alberta to have its own petrochemical industry, which, of course, is dependent on Alberta refining its own crude oil — not shipping it down to Ontario, not sending it to B.C., not sending it across the line in crude form, but having it refined in Alberta.

Lougheed talked about this at great length; he analyzed it at great length. He talked about the population increase that would follow from establishing such an industry, which would be approximately half-a-million new people to go into Alberta in the next three years.

Lougheed's proposals for growth are entirely predicated on having Albertan oil refined in Alberta, and the products of that refinery programme, mainly the petrochemical industry, in Alberta. He doesn't want to have it in Sarnia; he doesn't want to have it in the Fraser Valley. From his point of view, we can understand that that makes a lot of sense.

My first question to the Minister is: where is guaranteed source of oil? If it's not Alberta, it has to be offshore oil. If it's offshore oil, the options are Alaskan oil, which I would oppose bitterly on the grounds that we do not wish to encourage Alaskan oil coming past our shores and through our waters to a British Columbia refinery.

If it's Alaskan oil, have the added problem that as soon as there is the slightest bit of trouble the Americans will divert it to their own refineries in Puget Sound, Long Beach and elsewhere up and down the Pacific Coast, and even, perhaps, through Panama and into the gulf ports of Texas and thereabouts. It seems unlikely that it will be Alaskan oil unless, of course, we work out some trade-off with the Americans by way of giving them Albertan oil, and that seems a very, very, very risky proposal for British Columbia to be engaged in.

If indeed there was trouble and the source was cut off, we would instantly start howling for Albertan crude to replace the Alaskan crude, and it is unlikely

[ Page 1165 ]

we would get it. It's a very risky proposal and I don't think it should be gone into, but I would like to hear from the Minister as to whether this is a possibility.

What are other alternatives, Mr. Chairman? Venezuelan crude is a possibility. Indonesian crude is a possibility. Mexican crude is a possibility. But all three sources of supply of crude suffer from all of the traditional problems of the overseas source: all three are liable to interruption; all three depend upon heavy tanker traffic, and I think that not one of them is a particularly good source, certainly not a long-term secure source. So I would question the Minister on this. I don't know of any possibilities of Siberian crude, or any Soviet bloc crude, but it appears to me that the refinery that he is proposing will not be provided with crude unless it is from Venezuela, Mexico or Indonesia. And it appears that this would be a very, very unstable source, and in times of trouble we would be in difficulty.

So that is my first question: where will we get the feed stock for the proposed refinery? Once we settle that question, perhaps we can go into subsidiary questions such as where it should be, what the costs are, and whatever.

My own view, from what we know at the present time, is that it makes a great deal of sense to have Albertan crude refined in Alberta and for us to buy the refined product. We will then have a Canadian source of supply. We'll have the protection that Confederation offers us. It has been shown in the last couple of years with energy crises that this has been advantageous to British Columbia as well as to other provinces. We would have the product that we need at a price within the limits set by the federal government and federal provincial conferences, and we would have the best of all worlds.

It is true that we would not have the industrial development of the petrochemical complex, but we are not going to get it anyway, unless on the riskiest possible grounds, basing ourselves on overseas crude. So I would like the Minister to go into some detail on that.

The second point I would like the Minister to comment on is the steel mill. Once again we are dealing with an industrial proposal which depends upon an overseas source of raw material — Australian, Indian, but not British Columbian — because essentially we don't have the quantities or any quantity to speak of for a major steel mill. So the steel mill would be very similar. We would be dependent upon a foreign source; and just as soon as the country concerned sets up its own steel mill, it will cut us off and we will be buying the finished product as we are doing at the present time. Then we will be left with this great monument to the Minister, our great little Minister of Industrial Development, a monument of a rusting steel mill, unusable because of no source of supply.

The other problem with a steel mill is this: there are many types of steel used in British Columbia, literally scores of different types of steel, and a single steel mill might not produce very many of the types we need. The New Zealanders found when they set up their mill that they were producing, I think, under 10 of the 160-odd types of steel they were using. The New Zealanders set up a steel mill. They thought it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. They tried then to get rid of it to the Australian steel complex when they discovered it was not working well. When that failed, they tried to get rid of it to the Japanese, and I don't know what's happened since. But it has turned out to be, in a market similar to ours, with about the same number of people as ours, a white elephant.

Steel mills, Mr. Chairman, which depend upon foreign sources of supply, which in turn will depend also on foreign capital…. We're importing capital from the Arabs like it is going out of style. We will have to import the capital, not only for that refinery but also for the steel mill. We'll have to import the capital. We don't have the technology for the steel mill, so that will be imported too. And, finally, we are going to have to export most of the product.

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister has great ideas on this steel mill I wish he would let us know at the present time, because so far it looks like a pretty rotten deal.

The steel mill in question would bring large amounts of environmental damage, would take enormous amounts of water, fresh water, as the Minister knows. The sites that have been indicated as possible are Kitimat, the site up near the Qualicum area, and also Roberts Bank. These are sites where the local residents, at least in two of the three, have mounted strong protests against it. It leads to visual destruction or visual pollution on a major scale. The main reason the Japanese want to got rid of steel mills, or at least want to establish new ones outside of the home islands, is because of the environmental problems which they are experiencing at the present time.

We are going to be bringing in foreign capital, foreign technology, foreign raw materials and we're going to be exporting most of the products, leaving behind large environmental damage in British Columbia. So I'd like to know a little more about the thinking behind that particular steel mill.

The proposal has been made that somehow or another we will be able to swap our steel with those countries that are going to export crude oil to us. That argument is like adding a house of cards on top of a house of cards. These things don't make sense when you're dealing with the imported raw material.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few minutes. I'd just like to mention another similar industry which we have at the present time and which very soon is going to

[ Page 1166 ]

disappear. I know you're interested because it happens to be the Kitimat aluminum development in your own riding, Mr. Chairman.

As soon as there's a major nuclear power plant in the Caribbean, kiss goodbye to bauxite coming to British Columbia for the Kitimat Alcan operation. They come here for power, they come here for the fuel, the smelting to turn it from bauxite into aluminum, then as soon as they have a source of supply in the Caribbean you can kiss goodbye to the industry. That's a fact of life.

As yet they don't have that nuclear plant in the Caribbean, but they're going to get it, and it won't be long. When we do, our advantage will disappear.

We've already had Alcan's operations for bauxite nationalized in Guyana. We've had the Jamaicans a lot less friendly to us than previously and we're going to lose an industry which we presently have just as soon as they find a government in the Caribbean which has a nuclear reactor to provide the necessary electricity for smelting.

Now we're in much the same situation with the oil refinery, except here it's been clearly indicated by Lougheed that he wants to keep refining capacity at home. Here it's been indicated by the other countries concerned that are potential suppliers — Mexico, for example — that they also would like to have the industry at home and just as soon as they set up their refining capacity, they won't be shipping it through to us either. The same with Venezuela, that's why you find a large number of off-shore refineries throughout the Caribbean. They're using crude and they're sending the finished product up into the American market.

I would like the Minister to comment, not in a flippant way that he gave a few minutes ago in his speech. I'd like him to comment in detail and put his mind to the problems I am raising. Because, we can build steel mills, we can build refineries. But when we've built them, when we've spent the billion dollars that that refinery will likely cost us — and I'm using the figures of Texaco's latest refinery in Ontario as the basis of my comparison — when we've spent approximately $1 billion, we may find that the thing isn't going to produce any economic benefits at all.

If Lougheed's tough enough, if the American situation is such that they won't provide us with Alaskan crude, if the off-shore suppliers elsewhere are being nationalistic, as our Premier constantly tells them to be, we simply won't find crude there either.

When it comes to steel, we have exactly the same problem. Sure, we have coal in British Columbia. Sure, we have power in British Columbia. But again when the Indian government sets up their steel refining in the way they want it, they will not be exporting ore as they are at the present time. Similarly with Australia.

All the advantages for this particular industry that have been talked about by the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development are true for other countries as well. The difference is this: they may well have the chance of establishing them on the basis of their own raw material and we don't have that raw material. We don't have the raw material for a steel mill except, as I mentioned, in the case of coal.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have an industry at the present time employing thousands of British Columbians which within the next decade will probably disappear, which may well disappear within the next five years. It's Alcan, it's Kitimat, it's the use of British Columbia hydro power to smelt bauxite into aluminum.

I don't think we should go into other major industries which are similarly vulnerable, in fact much more vulnerable. I don't think we should go into other industries where it's clear we're going to have serious difficulties in getting the raw materials. I don't think we should go into other industries where it's perfectly clear that the only reason the Japanese want to have a steel mill here, instead of on their home islands, is because of the outcry that comes in Japan every time they try and set up a new mill.

I know this committee of the Minister is looking into this. I know it's down in the estimates of his department. I think there is $480,000 for this steel feasibility study down there in code 038 of vote 37. But I question the basis upon which this work is being done. Believe me, Mr. Minister, I've had some experience in the international development field and I have seen time after time national plans of countries set up.

I've seen developments begun and I've seen that only after the plant is established do people start worrying about the fundamental questions, such as source of raw material. It happens time after time. I'd like to know here and now what the information you have on this is, what the thinking you have on it is in terms of these very fundamental questions which I've raised today.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I assure the Hon. Member that my replies will not be flippant. I reserve that kind of reply to the kind of speech we heard from the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). I appreciate the research and the questions that the Hon. Member has made. I think they are very legitimate and they should be answered with the knowledge I have available.

Let me first say that with respect to the steel feasibility study what we wanted to do was find specific, knowledgable supportable answers to many of the questions you've raised. I think we can discuss them, however, and give you some of the answers that we have arrived at without specific knowledge but with general knowledge and why we are approaching the steel feasibility study in the first

[ Page 1167 ]

place.

With the importation of iron ore it was clear to us that this would have to be foreign importation. There was no really accessible area within our jurisdiction that would provide a source of iron ore. This was part of the discussion that took place prior to the Premier and myself going to Japan.

At that time when we presented that problem, among others, to Japanese steel makers, we asked them whether it was feasible to do a feasibility study having regard to that fact. They indicated to us a number of factors — that steel production really is not a local jurisdiction kind of business. It's a world business. The kind of planning that goes on in various countries of the world is done globally. So steel production in B.C. would have to in some way fit into the global strategy, if you like, of steel production.

I said: "Well, that's fine. But how does that get us iron ore?" They replied that the commitment for iron ore, on a long-term basis to our plant, would be a global decision. Like anything else, these kinds of global decisions are subject to the frailties of politics in particular countries and so on.

But it's also clear to us that none of the plans for steel production in Australia or South America or elsewhere would exclude the security of supply of iron ore to the kind of production project that may come down the line to B.C. Peru and Australia are a good source of supply and the particular partner that we have chosen to assist us with a feasibility study assures us of that fact.

Secondly, we have hopes in a long-term basis of seeing the iron ore potential of the Yukon investigated more thoroughly. At this stage it appears to us that it's economically unviable, it's inaccessible and it's costly. But the ingenuity and the technology of Canadian mining may have some answers to those problems soon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Not everything's bad.

Next I should point out that this feasibility study is also analyzing the direct reduction process so that the scale of production comes from two to four million tons a year that would have to be exported to something that would supply the Alberta-B.C. market.

There was a question of Alberta and Saskatchewan's steel production. I say, with great respect to them, that it's totally uneconomic by virtue of transportation economics. That analysis reveals clearly they cannot produce steel as cheaply as we can — under any circumstances. They have to ship in ore overland and ship out products overland. They have no market where they are producing it and they have no source of iron ore and they have no coal, they have no power, they have no natural gas in the way that we do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's lunatic.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's lunatic, I agree. Let me proceed a little further on the processes of thinking. I don't agree with you. The concept of having steel production in B.C. is to ensure a supply of reasonably priced steel to B.C. to provide jobs and to be step No. 1 in the process of the diversification of our economy.

Of course, it doesn't fit into the economic picture as we see it today in British Columbia because we are resource-based and we haven't thought in those terms — we've talked in those terms. But to do something about it and to take the second step is very, very important: secure a supply of reasonably priced steel for secondary industry and construction in British Columbia.

Secondly, we saw the role of the pipeline and the role of transportation in the west. We have to be prepared, if our views about the Mackenzie valley pipeline do not prevail, to be in a competitive position. But I say that is a secondary proposition and I think we can supply steel, we can build pipe mills, we can build other mills and take a competitive position, provide the jobs and secure the supply of steel.

This was an attractive thing for British Columbia and this was the kind of concept that was before us when we decided to go to Japan and talk seriously with Japanese steel producers. It is not so much a question that they wish to export pollution, it is a question that they have no room. Maybe that's another way of talking environment — and I think it is. But it is not pollution as such; it's no room as such.

Secondly, what prevailed upon the Japanese steel producers more than anything is the fact that we supply the greater portion of coking coal to their steel-producing factories — coking coal upon which they will have to depend for many, many years to come. We put it to them that the value of that resource to them is important. We wish to see it developed but we wish to see something back other than just the going rate for the coal. We feel that we should have some investment by them in our province.

The discussion then revealed that they were motivated by that fact. They thought that if they were going to have a good relationship with a supplier of a raw resource vital, absolutely integrally important, to the production of steel in Japan, they would have to provide the investment — which is another point you raised — to establish some steel production in B.C.

Thirdly, it was important to us in our discussions

[ Page 1168 ]

that we just not use coking coal, provide a handful of jobs, produce slab steel and export steel. That was important. We said we don't want a Kitimat situation which, for a long-term situation, will only supply a handful of jobs, and really export power.

We have an agreement, which was tabled and made public, for a feasibility study which indicates we are looking at the fabrication of steel within this jurisdiction, for export as well as domestic use. That is also being looked at in the feasibility study. I cannot predict what the feasibility study will say, but it is our expectation that this will be feasible, that we can produce rolled steel pipe, construction steel, re-bar, and supply existing plants as well in this province from the slab steel produced in a blast furnace operation. Remember always that we are also looking, coincidentally, to a direct reduction process in the Province of B.C. which will produce, perhaps, 750,000 or 1.2 million tons, rather than the two million to four million tons of a blast furnace — a more modest approach.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, I'm sorry. A blast furnace production, Mr. Chairman, is when we use metallurgical coal on the iron ore to produce pig iron and steel. Direct reduction is a process of electric arc furnaces and natural gas which produces steel on a smaller scale.

In terms of the power use of this kind of thing, the feasibility study is analyzing carefully what the priorities of the use of natural gas are.

The three major strategic areas, and why this government has embarked upon feasibility study, are: (1) a secure supply of steel, either from blast furnace or in direct reduction; (2) to take a part of the western Canadian market; and (3) to provide jobs. We will do that using either the blast furnace approach or the direct reduction approach, and in keeping with both, the barter system providing for the input of investment here and the spin-off in the steel industry of fabrication of pipe and so on.

Dealing briefly with the oil refinery, I could state clearly that it's a totally different kind of operation. The source of crude oil from Alberta is, of course, the source that is contemplated. There is no other source you can contemplate under these circumstances. What the Hon. Member misunderstood from Premier Lougheed's statements is that Lougheed is talking about a petrochemical complex. The Government of British Columbia is talking, when it has talked about the oil refinery, of an oil refinery.

There are several differences. A petrochemical complex produces products related to the petroleum industry: plastics spin-off and so on. An oil refinery is interested entirely in the product use of gasoline and its by-products in a local market situation. You cannot transport product lines through pipes, railcar or truck without offending economics and environment. This is clearly understood in Alberta. To transport even from Merritt to the consumer market is economically undesirable. It costs a fortune to have product lines, and the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) can explain that to you.

Crude line is one line; product lines are several and they're impractical. So you put your oil refineries close to the consumer. That is what is envisaged by the B.C. government. If we were to get logically into a petrochemical enterprise, we would do so with emphasis on natural gas.

What are our priorities for the use of natural gas as a petrochemical resource? Not crude oil. That is clearly Alberta's jurisdiction. They understand our position and they agree with it. They certainly do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Have you a letter, or any other indication?

HON. MR. LAUK: I've got an indication of agreement from the late Minister of Industrial Development in Alberta. I'm not sure whether he was fired before or after the agreement.

There's always a concern about the priorities of the use of crude oil in Alberta. I don't think there's as much as the Hon. Member indicates. We should be concerned about it. We have to have refinery capacity in the consumer area, or fairly close to it, for economic reasons. We need a source of crude, and I think that Alberta will be a safe source of crude.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we do not think of crude oil petrochemical manufacturing here in the province, but we certainly can look realistically at gas petrochemical refinement in the province.

Because of whatever percentage of insecurity there is in the source of crude from Alberta, I think we should have a continuous programme of drilling and exploring within our own jurisdiction. That is another chapter of the story which should be discussed some day.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to say, first of all, that the remarks of the Minister with regard to the survey being done for the steel mill are very interesting.

I would like to correct the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) that we do not import bauxite and make aluminum out of it. We import alumina and make aluminum out of it. It is partially finished in the country of its….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: Would the Member yield so I

[ Page 1169 ]

can answer one last question of the Hon. Member? It will only take two seconds.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm afraid he might leave….

MR. PHILLIPS: I want you to remember this, though, in the future.

HON. MR. LAUK: The interesting thing about the Kitimat thing, as the Hon. Member who just yielded indicated in part of the subject of his talk, is this: I am interested in the energy report of some years ago dealing with Hat Creek coal. It has a fly ash content from which alumina can be achieved. I think that kind of investigation could be accelerated coincidentally with the nuclear power acceleration in the south.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would also like to remind the Second Member for Victoria that there are….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: We've got alumina in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue with his speech? I'm sure the others will listen attentively.

MR. PHILLIPS: I should point out that there are — and I believe the Minister will back me up on this — steel mills in the world and in Japan relatively free from pollution. I think that regardless of what we are talking about, we must be completely honest with ourselves and realize that steel mills can be pollution free.

I would like to say just a few words to the Minister about the feasibility study. I must say that I hope, to preserve and improve the job situation in British Columbia, that this industry does become feasible.

I would like to remind the Minister of some commitments he has made to outlying areas of the province to diversify population. I might just remind him of the purposes of the General Development Agreement, schedule A, which he signed on March 28, 1974. This is the general agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. I would like to remind the Minister that in this agreement he states that the sub-agreements should include:

"…such objectives in the body of the agreement as to improve the opportunities for productive employment and access to those opportunities in areas or economic sectors of British Columbia which, relative to other areas or sectors of the province, require special measures to realize development potential."

I would like very much for the Minister to keep that statement in mind when he comes to making the selection for the site of the steel mill, should the feasibility study prove it worthwhile.

He goes on to say:

"…and to promote balanced development among areas of British Columbia, to encourage the equitable distribution of the benefits of such development."

That, Mr. Chairman, is a very broad, encompassing statement. However, he goes on also in this agreement to say:

"In carrying out these strategies, the immediate priorities are to apply co-ordinated action to overcome impediments to development and concentrate on significant development opportunities that will activate under-utilized and uncommitted resources, initially in the northwest, the Kootenays and the northeast."

The key statement here, of course, is "uncommitted resources…(of) the northeast."

One reason that the steel mill would be perfectly feasible in the northeastern sector of the province, of course, is the tremendous amount of coal which at the present time is uncommitted and unutilized. The Minister can correct me if I'm wrong when I say they are uncommitted. Maybe he has information of which I am not aware through the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. But to my knowledge, the vast…. I say "vast," and I don't think the people of this province realize that the coal deposits in the northeastern part of the province would even dwarf the coal deposits in the southeast part of the province, and the potential for development in that area is far greater than the Kaiser development or the Fording Coal development in the southeast portion.

Also, the number of miles to tidewater, over the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, are less than they are from the southeast portion. That's something I wish the Minister would take note of, if he's not aware of it now. That is, the coal can be transported over less number of rail miles to Squamish or to Prince Rupert, less number of railway miles than the Kaiser coal has to come to reach Roberts Bank. Not many people are aware of that, We have a tendency to think that the Peace River area is up in the Yukon somewhere, and it's not. It's basically in the centre of the province.

The other item we must remember is that that area is served by the British Columbia Railway, which is our railroad. Another point I'd like to talk to the Minister about, to remind him of, is the untapped potential for hydro power in that area still. It could be developed, utilizing the vast reservoir behind the Bennett Dam, which makes it much more economical be develop hydro on the remaining sites on the Peace

[ Page 1170 ]

River than, certainly, other areas in the province.

If we want to talk about cheap power, and the use of power for one process he was talking about in developing steel, certainly that power is there. The coal is there. You might say that we'd have to transport raw material overland into the site of the steel mill if it was in that particular area. However, when the coal is developed, there will also be an export…. The unit trains could be used to take out coal. There's certainly enough to run several steel mills and still export large quantities of the coal. Then you'd run the unit trains back carrying in the raw material. So it makes it perfectly feasible.

One of the other difficulties that would have to be overcome in establishing a steel mill — as the Minister has said, it's the reason Japan wants to get rid of its steel industry or to locate it elsewhere — is the tremendous amount of land that it takes to locate a steel mill. We're talking about thousands and thousands of acres of land. Is it 200,000 acres of land — 20,000 acres?

HON. MR. LAUK: 2,000 acres.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that isn't the information…. I stand corrected. The information I received from the group which was in our area looking at land stated that they certainly needed a lot more than 2,000 acres. They were talking in terms of 20,000 – 30,000 acres.

HON. MR. LAUK: It depends. If you just have a blast furnace, 2,000 acres; if you want to have ancillary facilities….

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, even 2,000 acres of land, in some areas, is a tremendous amount of land. So in that area, you really don't have that much problem with transportation. You have a ready supply of power; you have a ready supply of natural gas. You also have an area — two areas in the Peace River — which this plant could be located on and have the third requirement, of course, which is a ready supply of fresh water. Certainly the area has probably more fresh water than anywhere else in British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: Who have you been talking to?

MR. PHILLIPS: I've just been listening to you, Mr. Minister. You were the one who was telling me that these were the requirements.

HON. MR. LAUK: You're an awfully smart fellow.

MR. PHILLIPS: So I'm just saying that all of this is available, as I say, to back up your own agreements, your own intentions, where you've said that outlying areas of the province should be developed, particularly to diversify population and to take advantage of uncommitted resources. So when you start talking about doing surveys for a steel mill on Qualicum Beach or even in Kitimat itself, Mr. Chairman, which is your area, you'd be much further ahead to look at an area which has a good manpower supply, has all of the natural resources required and has an abundance of land.

Now if I might just take a moment, I'd like to speak about the other item that I was going to talk about. The Minister mentioned that we would be producing steel to supply pipeline, and certainly that is the area where the future pipeline growth of the continent is going to be. I think, whether we like it or not, whether it happens this year or five years from now, we're going to see a pipeline down the Mackenzie delta.

With the tremendous demand for our natural resources, and particularly the natural gas in the Prudhoe Bay area and in the Mackenzie delta area, with the demand, even if it's just to supply Canada, you're going to see that pipeline. The steel required to build that pipeline would keep several refineries going for quite a few years. Certainly, once the major pipeline is built, Mr. Minister, for years there will be requirement for additional feeder lines and pipelines. If you're going to supply steel to that particular industry, why, you're going to have less transportation costs to supply this steel…

HON. MR. LAUK: Have you got a copy of the report?

MR. PHILLIPS: …than you are in other areas of the province. So I just wanted to remind the Minister, while the subject of a steel mill was on the floor.

I just wanted to remind the Minister of these areas of concern for his feasibility study. If he takes them under consideration, I'm sure it will assist him and his group who are doing the study in coming to a much easier conclusion. Certainly, I want to be of help to the Minister and I want to be of help to those who are looking for jobs in this province. I want to particularly be of help to the Minister in making this decision. So I thought that while the subject was on the floor of the Legislature I would reiterate some of the pluses that our area has for this steel mill.

HON. MR. LAUK: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the Member's theory of the backhaul transportation economics is quite correct. If the press will listen carefully so they won't stop me in the corridor on the way to the washroom anymore, the sites that are being considered in phase 1 are: east Vancouver Island, Nanaimo and Bowser areas; north coast, Prince Rupert and Kitimat areas; north central east, Prince George and the Peace River. These are the six

[ Page 1171 ]

sites still in phase 1. We are close to making a decision to narrow it to three — one in each area — for the more detailed feasibility work.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I hope to make it soon. I don't want to tie it down until the executive committee reviews the material.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: They'll be meeting in early May. I'll get a report back. Somewhere after that, we'll try and make a decision.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then it will be narrowed down to three?

HON. MR. LAUK: It will be narrowed down to three in each of those areas: east Vancouver Island, north coast, north central east. We've included the Peace River because of the arguments that you've raised.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make to this Minister.

HON. MR. LAUK: Keep it clean.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I certainly will, Mr. Minister.

A lot of discussion has taken place on the northwest agreement. I believe it was announced July, 1973, if I recall, by the Premier, but we haven't seen much dirt moved since that time. In fact, nothing. The talk continues to go on. I believe the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) referred to it in his discussion and I also believe that the Minister didn't reply at all. I'd like to hear where he thinks that agreement is, because it certainly affects the northwest.

As the Member for Columbia River mentioned, the British Columbia Railway connection with the main line railroads, the CPR and CNR, is badly needed and has been for years. It's in this northwest agreement, as I understand it. When is something going to happen? Do we have to wait for a catastrophe to the mainline railroads in the Fraser canyon to expedite this? What has to take place?

When he was up earlier the Minister challenged me about a copper smelter because I had said in the budget debate that there would never be a copper smelter built in British Columbia as long as this government was in power.

HON. MR. LAUK: Stake your seat on it.

MR. FRASER: I reiterate that. It is my feeling that that will never happen as long as this government is in power…

HON. MR. LAUK: Will you resign?

MR. FRASER: …because of Bill 31 that we passed in this Legislature and the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) who was here and guided it through.

HON. MR. LAUK: Order.

MR. FRASER: I think that we're talking about a copper smelter. Mr. Chairman, don't take your orders from that Minister. I'm glad you haven't.

We were certainly in the discussion stage in 1972. I believe, again, there has been a task force put out about the location of a copper smelter. I don't know where that's at, other than it came under the Minister of Mines. The Minister of Economic Development no doubt has something to do with it and he can tell us something about when they are going to report about the feasibility of the copper smelter.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I realize that.

MR. CHABOT: It will never happen under your government.

MR. FRASER: On the subject of task forces in the northwest, I think, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHABOT: I'll stake my seat on that.

HON. MR. LAUK: Will you stake your seat on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Cariboo has the floor.

HON. MR. LAUK: This is history in the making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. LAUK: You say that you'll resign your seat if we build a copper smelter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister and the Hon. Member for Columbia River save their dispute for the corridors?

MR. FRASER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Put them out in the corridor; that might enhance the debate of….

Interjection.

[ Page 1172 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm going up there to run against him.

MR. CHABOT: Come on up!

MR. FRASER: Again, on the northwest development. Thinking of all task forces that have gone through the northwest, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this government owes all these people an apology for building up their hopes, keeping them built up for just about two years now and no action whatsoever.

I'm amazed the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) hasn't had something to say about it. He represents the good riding of Prince Rupert. Why haven't you, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Skeena, and the Members for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and Fort George (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) been up hollering about these task forces that are going through there? All the community leaders along what we call the west line up there, from Prince George to Prince Rupert, say they are fed up and all they've got from this government so far is task-force-itis. They want some action. I don't think they really mind whether you tell them that they aren't going to get something, or they are, but they want answers rather than just a task force inviting them to all these meetings to put input in and then nothing happens.

I was interested, Mr. Chairman, in the news release just received from the Minister Without (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) regarding the steel mill, and I think that since this session started — I'm talking about the Minister Without — somebody should check his attendance record. I don't think he's been in this House 50 per cent of the time since February 18.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, you can call it what you want, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings), but it's a fact so maybe that's why you are a little concerned that his attendance is probably less than 50 per cent.

What got me onto the Minister Without Portfolio is the press release that he issued about the proposed steel mill, and I want to read it. If you have never heard doubletalk, I'll read you some now from this press release. The Minister Without Portfolio says here: "It brings to six the number of locations being considered as sites for a steel mill and marks the first time Prince George has been included in the study." The Minister, by the way, has just announced that no doubt they have cut that in half to three, and I wonder whether Prince George is one of the three that are out.

In any case, the Minister Without Portfolio goes on and says:

"'There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to locating the steel mill in Prince George,' said Nunweiler, 'and I want to emphasize right now that the city is only one of six possibilities being studied by the Department of Economic Development. Factors which favour Prince George's location for a steel mill,' he said, 'include its role as a major transportation centre for the province, its large population with an associated percentage of skilled labourers, its access to arterial energy flow corridors, and the availability of municipal services for both residential and industrial purposes.

"'On the face of it,' said Nunweiler, 'these features lead to the conclusion that among those sites being considered the total economic and social effects of the proposed project could be better absorbed by Prince George than any of the other five.'"

Mr. Minister, this is what your colleague in the cabinet says that is here once in a while.

"'However,' he cautioned, 'there are also a number of other factors to be considered and these must also be weighed seriously before any final choice is made. Chief among these,' he said, 'is location of the city in relation to the source of iron ore and international markets for the product.'"

I think that is a very interesting observation when we are talking steel mills: where is the iron ore that it comes from?

"Nunweiler said: 'The availability of road and rail transportation makes Prince George an ideal site for the domestic market, considering the primary reason for constructing a steel mill in B.C. Offshore markets must also be considered. Environment factors must be examined.'"

But this Minister just goes wishy-washy in every direction regarding that in the steel mill in his area in his press release.

The other point that I want to bring up that is under this Minister's jurisdiction is the British Columbia Railway, Mr. Chairman. I realize that this Minister has only had this responsibility for about a week, but I think the people of this province should know what is really going on in that railroad, and I certainly want to advise the new vice-president here — I assume he will be the vice-president of the railroad, replacing the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) — because it is the most talked of and serious matter affecting the central interior of our province.

When we talked about economic development, believe me, this railroad is affecting the economic development of the central and northern interior, costing it millions of dollars in non-economic development. I really don't know, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 1173 ]

what has happened to that railroad in the last two years, but I can tell you where it is right now. It's in a complete state of turmoil.

I will just deal with the last 12 months. Twelve months ago the lumber prices were excellent in the central and northern interior and that railroad had no railcars. There was a very desperate shortage of railcars and the manufacturers of forest products couldn't get their products to market.

They did finally get railcars after the lumber market had dropped down to a below-cost operation from a very high profit margin. We will never know how much it cost the economy of this province in lost profits that would have stayed in British Columbia — millions and millions of dollars. The people in the interior of British Columbia cannot understand why this British Columbia railway could never get railcars to ship any type of products when the price of those products is excellent on the local and world markets, but they can get all kinds of railcars when there is no market. It is absolutely scandalous.

I'll deal with a year ago. Then I'll bring us up to the last fall when we had a work stoppage on that railroad from November 26 to January 7, seven weeks, totally uncalled for. The length of the stoppage was seven weeks. It cost the people of this province, and more particularly the central and northern interior, millions of dollars in lost production and revenue.

As I said at the time, the then vice-president had a conflict of interest. I don't think there is any improvement in the replacement, but at least this Minister has not got a conflict of interest. But he has started off on the wrong track in dealing with the central interior people when he is asked a question about what happened to senior management people and he says he doesn't know. He isn't going to get very far with that line of guff, since he is now responsible. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of the few places we can discuss this very important railroad to the economy of this province, because the president of the railroad is not here and neither is the Minister Without Portfolio. That is why I mentioned earlier about the absence of the Minister Without Portfolio, because they are all members of the board of directors of the BCR. Things are serious on that line right today. Somebody should be looking into them.

I further feel the Mr. Wakely, the chief engineer…. What's going on with construction on that railroad with no chief engineer to supervise the contractors or even their own people? I have to assume that that is probably coming to a halt.

As far as the general manager is concerned, there is no man more respected by the staff of the BCR than Mr. Trask. He resigned in writing a week ago last Monday. I can't get the director, this Minister, to even admit that they have received his resignation letter. It is my information that he met the Premier here the other day, he and Mr. Mack Norris, the vice-president — "he" being Mr. Trask. They had a whole five-minute interview with the president just prior to his exit for Ottawa, and we can't get any information.

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

Who do these Ministers think they are? Whose do they think this railroad is? It belongs to the people of British Columbia, We are entitled to know what is going on, because we are concerned, believe me. At the rate they are directing this railroad, we aren't going to have a railroad fairly soon in operation. I predict that that is where this is all going to come to because of the lack of desire of these directors to get the hand on the throttle there and find out what is going on and correct what is going on.

I further say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Trask has left the railroad because of political interference from this government. I would like them to deny that.

As far as the morale of the people on that railroad is concerned, it has never been lower than it is today. Nobody cares, from the section hand right up to the head hoghead, on that railroad. They don't care what happens, because there is no direction coming from the top. If that is the attitude at the top, it goes right through, right down to the section hand. That is why we've got troubles and why I'm concerned and every citizen in the interior is concerned.

The moment that railroad goes out, we have massive unemployment. It is the lifeline. This government doesn't seem to understand that. Why aren't they doing something to stop trouble that is certainly here now and going to get worse?

The other thing, Mr. Chairman: I asked the Premier the president of the railroad, in this House 10 days ago about the financial statement of that operation. I would like to tell this House that for the 1973 operating year on the BCR — they operate on the calendar year — every Member of the Legislature had the operating statement in his hand on February 22, 1974. The railroad has operated from January to December 1974. This is April 9. Where is the financial statement?

What has been buried in that financial statement? I'll tell you what's in it: it shows a huge operating deficit of at least $10 million, for the first time ever. But if this is the case, why hide it and try and bury it under the rug? Let's get it out here and get these directors and this new director busy and correct it. Let's start afresh.

Believe me, Mr. Chairman, it's serious. They have changed auditors from Butlar & Chiene to Peat Marwick & Partners. I have information that they are coming out with a whole new financial statement that

[ Page 1174 ]

we can't compare with prior operations. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, we'll find auditors who will be able to compare and show the facts that are going on.

We are fed up to the teeth in the central interior with the operation of this railroad. Something has to be smartened up and fast or there's going to be real trouble.

HON. MR. LAUK: You may not like the answers.

MR. FRASER: Well, that's fine, but let's get them out on the table. I will tell you….

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: What about that $35 million advance — the grant-loan. Let's hear more about it. We have huge deficits here, and that's fine. I think they can be corrected from the board of directors level and I think it's about time they got in on it. Go to people like John Trask. He'll tell you what's wrong, even if he has left. He's an upstanding fellow; he'll tell you why he left. Listen to him.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, why don't you consult more with the vice-president at well? I predict that this railroad is going to cease operations, and not through a work stoppage, if they don't get hold of the throttle in a hurry.

Right now up in the interior they are having difficulties getting cars for wood chips and so on. You apparently announced today, through the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), that you are going to allow the export of unlimited wood chips, which are a real problem for the sawmill industry in the central interior. It will be of some help. But there won't be any railcars to get the chips to market anyway because nobody has done anything about running and managing that railroad. It is the biggest public disgrace in this province right now because it has been going on for at least two years. Nobody cares, and sooner or later they will care, I can assure you, because they will have to care.

I can't refer to the bills before us but we'll have another opportunity when the bill comes. The borrowing power is $450 million now and the bill says that we are increasing it to $650 million. I can assure you all that the citizens of this province will want lots of answers about the operation of this railroad when we are debating that bill.

I would like to sit down now and hear from the Minister regarding the rail connections between Clinton and Ashcroft that is, I understand, part of the northwest agreement. I would like to hear from the Minister under his new duties as first vice-president of the railroad and get an answer about Mr. Trask in particular. What is the situation with Mr. Trask today? I don't think it's good enough, Mr. Chairman, to give an answer like he gave me the other day. I think it is very important to this province that the people know what is going on. Thank you.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Premier asked me to become executive vice-president of the B.C. Railway, and I was provided with several reports which had been ordered by this administration over the past two and a half years. I read them over the Easter break.

The administration of that railroad under the previous government for 20 years is a scandal of monumental proportions. The Premier is asking me to report to him on his return from Ottawa. When the Premier speaks on the bill mentioned by the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), I hope every Social Credit Member sits in this House and sits on their hands and keeps their mouths quiet and hears the condemnation that is going to come on the previous administration that has mortgaged the future of this province through the incompetent, bungling administration of the B.C. Railway. And you be in your seats.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: They're laughing nervously now; they're nervous now. I hope the Member for Cariboo, who comes out of his teapot on occasion and attacks us for the B.C. Railway, stakes his seat on the reports that are going to be made available to this Legislature.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll tell you about political interference. The history of that railroad was the history of one man's political petulance and arrogance and ego — one man, the former Premier of this province (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett). He devastated that railroad. He didn't give it a chance.

MR. FRASER: Awww! He made a railroad out of it — till you guys came along and ruined it!

HON. MR. LAUK: I hope you people are present. You only got a hint from the Minty report. Anyway, the president of the railroad will be informing you all in due course — and I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that these Hon. Members in the Social Credit Party were not aware — of the most unfortunate bungling of the previous Premier of this province. We'll all sit with deep regret and listen to the words as the president of the railroad will, I hope, reveal them in due course.

The reason for no railcars, Mr. Chairman…you know, I really can't understand where the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) was. He was an alderman, he

[ Page 1175 ]

was a mayor, he's now a Member of this Legislature. He's been sitting right beside the railroad for many, many years. Why did not the previous railroad take steps over 20 years of car shortages to build, buy or lease cars? Why didn't they take these steps? Now in a short time, in a boom-and-bust economy, he complains bitterly that there are no cars when the lumber market was up. Plenty of cars now — the lumber market's down. We've taken the step and we hope to manufacture our own cars.

MR. SMITH: It's funny that we had a lot of cars before.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's funny, but you didn't have lots of cars.

AN HON. MEMBER: We had enough.

HON. MR. LAUK: You didn't have lots of cars and you didn't have enough, Mr. Member. You don't know what's going on. You can't walk and chew gum at the same time. We didn't have enough cars. We had drastic periods of shortage in this province under your administration because there was a complete ignoring of the need to build or buy cars in this province.

MR. FRASER: Balderdash!

HON. MR. LAUK: You know it.

I wish I could say more about the BCR, but we'll leave it to another day.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the Hon. Minister should really be accusing Members on this side of the House of not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. A lot of his colleagues can't talk and think at the same time. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to a different subject at this point, but I'll just briefly come back to the subject raised by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). The Minister implied that British Columbia has some kind of guarantee from Alberta on the security of oil supply. Now I hope that that's the case, because of the problems concerning importation referred to by the leader of my party. I would ask the Minister if he could give us in some detail or substance what the import of this guarantee may be.

The subject I'd like to talk about more now is a question that the Minister and I had a bit to say about at the time of the budget debate. I think it is one that has engaged his interest and certainly has engaged his interest and certainly has engaged mine, and that's the question of the costs and benefits of Confederation to this province and particularly in terms of the tariff structure of our country and what it has to do with the economic development of British Columbia. At the time of the budget debate I brought up a lot of the subsidies and payments of this kind which are not made to British Columbia by the federal government, long-standing grievances. But let's focus particularly on those items that influence the cost structure of our province — the cost structure of industries with which this Minister must be concerned.

I hope the Minister of Economic Development will make the figures more precise, because he may have access to data that I don't have, but I would suggest to him that the direct cost of the tariff structure of Canada to British Columbia is something in the order of $300 million a year. I would suggest that's only the direct cost, Mr. Chairman; that's just the tariff that we pay on goods coming into Canada from other countries. It doesn't relate to the fact that we in British Columbia have to bring into our province from other parts of the country items manufactured behind a tariff wall that protects the manufacturers of central Canada. I have no quarrel with the fact that this brings jobs to central Canada. I think this is a good thing. I'm just making the point that we in British Columbia pay a premium for those jobs in central Canada. I'd like to identify what the cost may be.

If the average impact of the tariff wall around Canada is some 15 to 20 per cent, then we can say that on all those manufactured goods from eastern Canada which we bring into British Columbia — automobiles, stoves, electric dishwashers, electric frying pans, Lord knows what else — we're likely, on average, to be paying in British Columbia some 15 to 20 per cent more than we would in a completely free market.

I'd like to ask the Minister if he has any idea of the magnitude of this indirect cost of the tariff, which I think would be many times the $300 million direct cost. Let me do the arithmetic quickly. It is about $125 to $150 per man, woman and child in British Columbia.

I give these figures to illustrate the need for this Minister to set up some kind of a study — perhaps a royal commission, perhaps a task force; in any event, a body which would hear evidence publicly and report publicly into the costs and benefits of the tax and tariff structure of our nation, into the costs and benefits to British Columbia, and the impact on the wages, incomes and manufacturing costs of this province.

I would suggest that a commission of that kind could go a long way to provide the data base which in scattered form is available now. You read studies done by various academics as to the cost of the tariffs and, to some extent, reports put out by the federal government as to the ebb and flow of taxes and

[ Page 1176 ]

payments across this country. But it would pull together that data base in a coherent document and it would sensitize the public of this province, and the public of the rest of the country, to the high cost being paid by British Columbia in terms of the tariff and the taxation structure in this country.

That, in turn, would buttress our argument for more help from the central government in terms of the subsidies we are denied, which many other province receive, in terms of more help along the lines of this Minister's department to encourage secondary industry and resource processing in this province.

I don't think any British Columbian wants to say we want out of Confederation. What British Columbians want to say is: "This is our place in Confederation. It was negotiated 100 years ago. It may or may not have been a proper deal at that time, but at the moment it needs a little bit of renegotiation in terms of our economic development."

This is the Minister who should be looking after it. So I ask him, Mr. Chairman, for his reaction to this idea of a royal commission or some kind of study into the cost and benefits of Confederation on the tax and tariff cost structure in British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: As always, the Hon. Member makes good suggestions in a reasoned approach to our position as members of Confederation.

I should point out that it's not only central Canada we're subsidizing. In many ways we subsidize the Prairies for the Crow's Nest rates, and they hurt us. B.C. products subsidize Prairie grain. Maintenance of branch lines on the Prairies also hurt us in the same way.

Parts of these prices we can pay, and I don't think you're suggesting we shouldn't in some way contribute to Confederation in that sense. But your figure of $300 million as a transfer payment from British Columbia to central Canada because of their tariff protection is correct.

To give you an example of how correct your argument is…. I haven't confirmed the boat-building company that has reported to us and its decision to move to the United States to manufacture, but there is that report. I haven't got it confirmed yet that a certain recreation boat builder on the lower mainland has not got the tariff break, if you like, to import the automotive parts and other propulsion parts for his sea craft because of tariff protection. These parts which we could slip across the border would support a major labour-intensive industry — one of many — in the lower mainland because of, I think, a 15 per cent tariff on these parts to protect the long haul of central Canadian parts to B.C. It's uneconomical for them to continue; they're going south. What can I say? We're going to subsidize them? Double the transfer payment to central Canada?

But I'm glad to know that you and I, Mr. Member, are on separate ice floes in the same sea.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A while earlier the Minister of Economic Development spoke about the B.C. Railway.

HON. MR. LEA: Quit while you're ahead, Ed.

MR. SMITH: He suggested there was going to be revealed "a scandal of monumental proportions" upon the operation of the B.C. Railway — then called the PGE Railway — under the previous administration.

Well, I just hope the Hon. Minister has the courage to come up into the north country and suggest the same thing. Is he suggesting to this House that the extension of the B.C. Railway — which it is now known by; formerly known as the PGE Railway — from North Van to Squamish was a mistake?

Is he suggesting that the extension of the railway from Prince George to Fort St. John was a mistake? Is he suggesting that the extension of the railway from Prince George to Fort St. James was a mistake, or that the extension from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson was a mistake? If he's suggesting that, then he's denying everything that his department and the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) has suggested about northern development in the northwestern and north-central part of British Columbia.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You forgot one extension.

MR. SMITH: Without those extensions there is no way that the development of the north as we know it today would have taken place.

If you want to speak, get up on the floor on your feet like a man and speak when you have the floor.

HON. MR. LEA: You forgot one extension.

MR. SMITH: Quit your kibitzing from the side. You haven't said anything for days, Mr. Minister of Highways. Go out and fill your potholes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: Go out and fill your potholes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote, and would the Hon. Minister of Highways not interrupt the Member?

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Minister of Highways wants to speak, would the Hon.

[ Page 1177 ]

Chairman suggest to him that he does it when he's on his feet on the floor of the House, or go out and fill a few more potholes? There's lots to be done on the highways in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: Are you on your feet or are you standing on your toes?

MR. SMITH: Those were extensions developed under previous government which had been responsible for most of the development in northern British Columbia. But I suggest to the Minister that if he's really concerned about development and what's going on in British Columbia today, then perhaps he should look into the problem experienced by Churchill Copper north of Fort Nelson. Find out why they've had to lay off 100 men.

AN HON. MEMBER: Copper prices!

MR. SMITH: Partly because of copper prices, but mainly because of lack of transportation and facilities down here in the lower mainland, Mr. Minister. They can ship the concentrate right now as far as the port and then they can't get it out. It's not your responsibility, the port itself, but at least you should be letting your opinion be known to the rest of the Province of British Columbia if you're really concerned about what's going on in the province.

I'd suggest that you may talk about the problems we've experienced in track location and slippage and so on, in the north and use that as an excuse for the fact that the railway has not operated as many days of the year as it should. But then I suggest that you also take a look at the CN, which has run into the northern part of the province from Prince George to Prince Rupert for years, and find out how many days of the year they've been out of operation, and compare it to the record of the B.C. Railway. Just compare it to the record of the B.C. Railway and you'll find that even with a new venture into a new part of the province under very unstable conditions, the record of the B.C. Railway compares favourably with any other railway in the Province of British Columbia as far as downtime is concerned.

That's not to say that it's perfect. It's a long way from being perfect. But at least we should take a look at that. So don't try to use that as an excuse for not extending the railway into northern British Columbia or keeping it operative.

HON. MR. LAUK: We won't.

MR. SMITH: I'm glad you say that you won't.

A little while ago we talked about the possibilities of a steel mill in the Province of British Columbia. Six locations are possible, out of which we have before us now, perhaps, narrowed it down to three. I'm not convinced in my own mind, even though we have adequate electrical power in the northern part of northwestern British Columbia, even though we have adequate coal, even though we have adequate sulphur and adequate water, that we're really all that convinced that a steel mill is a good thing for that part of the Province of British Columbia.

You can talk about a 2,000-acre location if you like for the plant alone, but the Minister is as well aware as I am that the effluent disseminated from a pulp mill will affect the vegetation for not 2,000 acres but something like 20,000. I suggest that the Government of the Province of British Columbia, while they should look at the possibilities of a steel mill, would be well-advised to look at the suggestion of transporting the coal and the energy which is available to a place where you have water, to build a pulp mill or a steel mill which is away from the populated areas of the province at the present time. It's not a pleasant thing to have a steel mill in your back yard, no more than it is a pleasant thing to have a copper smelter in your back yard. For every community that might welcome such an industrial expansion I think there are 20 others which would suggest that they do not want it.

So it may be politically expedient to look at northeastern British Columbia or north-central British Columbia as a location for these facilities, because the number of seats involved in a provincial election is not large compared to the lower mainland or Vancouver Island. I would suggest that the people there have as much right to express their opinions as everyone else.

One of the things that I am concerned with, as you must be, Mr. Chairman, is the lip service paid by the members of cabinet, including the Minister of Economic Development in the Province of British Columbia, to the northern part of British Columbia. They talk a lot about expansion. This Minister has, as well as the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), but very, very little in the way of concrete developments.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

There are many things that we need and can cater to effectively in northern British Columbia without heavy industrial complexes being built there. I think there are many people in British Columbia today who would give a lot to live in an area where they have a clear blue sky, pure air and clean water, and a chance for themselves and their families to get out on a weekend and without travelling hundreds of miles to find a piece of rest and quiet, away from the humdrum, the steady traffic and the intensity of the large metropolitan areas.

We have that in northern British Columbia at the present time. People who are there and those who are

[ Page 1178 ]

expected to come in the future mainly locate there because they like the idea of a place to expand and a place to build a future as they see it. They don't want to have placed in their back yard another Vancouver metropolis. They want smaller communities with a little bit of freedom around them — a lot of space and clean air and water. We have that at the present time and we can maintain that, provided we make the best use of the resources that we have around us.

Now from what I have seen, and the statements that have been made by both this Minister and his compatriots, you talk a lot about northern development but you pay lip service to it.

MR. CHABOT: Great vision!

MR. SMITH: You've got great vision when you go out and talk to the different communities in northern British Columbia. But to date no one has seen any action. And the people of the north are saying today: "Put your money where your mouth is and come up with something in the line of a concrete proposal. Tell us what you consider to be the future of the north."

There's another thing that the people of northern British Columbia object to: they're getting sick and tired of representatives of government and commissions and delegations circulating throughout northern British Columbia, listening to the odd group, and then coming back to Victoria and doing exactly what they decided that they were going to do before they ever went out to conduct their so-called survey. I think the people of the north are wise to that, Mr. Minister, as they are to many of the other manoeuvres of this Minister and this government.

HON. MR. LAUK: Do they know who you are yet?

MR. SMITH: They know that it's nothing but lip service. They know that the Minister of Economic Development is out with the department that he has to say a lot and do very little.

HON. MR. LAUK: Do they know who you are yet, Ed?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I think they do. Come up and find out sometime, why don't you?

HON. MR. LAUK: …they call you "Fred" up there. They thought you were an MP.

MR. SMITH: Is that right? Hello, Joe. (Laughter.) Well, we'll let the Minister go along on that line, if he likes.

But I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman, as you must well know: the people of northern British Columbia are a little tired of listening to the fact that the government of this province today is going to sign a DREE agreement, or they're going to do this or they're going to do that, or they're going to go on a great expansion of services and facilities, because they've yet to see anything concrete happening.

While I'm at it, I'd like to spend a few minutes speaking about the conference that is presently taking place in Ottawa. It's great for the First Minister of this province, the Premier, to go to Ottawa and suggest to the federal government that he wants $2 a thousand for natural gas. It's a great pitch. He suggested that, really, he'd even be prepared to accept an increase to that level in three stages rather than all at once.

But I tell you what the people in the north are interested in. They're interested in how much and how soon the results of any increase in the price of natural gas are going to be reflected in increased services and benefits for the area they come from.

Mr. Minister, are you prepared to provide, other than through the municipal sharing arrangement which the Premier has talked about, tangible benefits for northern British Columbia? Is that your purpose?

They want more than lip service. They know that the commodity that is available, mainly through the efforts of the drilling industry in northeastern British Columbia, is a very valuable product to all the province. They don't mind sharing this with the rest of British Columbia, but I tell you that they want to see a little bit more activity and more dollars from that export price provided to them or directed to them in tangible benefits such as good roads, new and better recreational facilities, greater educational facilities, new hospitals, better sewer facilities, better water treatment plans, before they are going to be very concerned about the rest of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, the people in the north have learned one thing — that most of the rest of the province of British Columbia where the metropolitan area lives does not even know they exist. Yet without them we would have no province at all. That is where the potential and future of British Columbia exists, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 34 pass?

I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River — no, the Hon. Minister.

MR. CHABOT: I'll yield.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll try the Hon. Member for Columbia River again.

MR. CHABOT: I'll yield, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 34 pass? (Laughter.)

[ Page 1179 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Gotcha!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's more of his off-and-on policy. He doesn't know whether he wants to speak or not. He doesn't know whether he wants to build industry or whether he doesn't. Off and on!

MR. CHABOT: When he was kneeling, it appeared that he wanted to speak, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised, when I made reference to the Minister's press releases a little earlier in the afternoon, that the Minister is so embarrassed over what he had to say in the past. He is embarrassed over what he had to say. He wanted to repudiate. He called them "old press releases." He said I shouldn't be referring to old press releases. Well, Mr. Minister, in case you didn't know it, those happen to be statements that you've made, that someone's prepared and which you've approved to come out of your office. You expanded with great glee at the great activity that would take place.

Just a few moments ago when I was speaking, I mentioned the question of steel and wondered whether we would ever see a steel smelter established in the province because of the expansions that were taking place in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Certainly expansion is taking place there. Alberta, with its windfall profits on oil, is looking to establish a massive steel complex in there. One study — I don't know if you've seen it — "Profile of Development for Alberta," prepared by economic consultants for the government, had this to say about the steel-making potential of Alberta.

HON. MR. LAUK: Was that from Fred Peacock?

MR. CHABOT: No, it wasn't from Fred Peacock. It was a Vancouver firm that was doing research in Alberta. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is confused as to the source of this information. He is wrong. They say:

"Observers believe that Alberta is also seriously contemplating a steel-making facility as part of this industrial base. Given the ready availability of natural gas and metallurgical coal, the direct reduction steel-making process could be envisaged to produce hot and cold coil and sheet steel in substantial volume.

"Some speculate that Alberta may develop the more major world scale steel-making complex through successful production of synthetic natural gas from coal, which would allow for a broader range of steel products in far greater volume. While precise location of such a facility is not yet known, one possibility is near the Peace River area of the province, where large coal deposits lie on tap."

So here we have the Province of Alberta contemplating (it's not a fait accompli yet, but they are contemplating) the establishment of a massive world-scale steel-making facility in the Peace River country.

HON. MR. LAUK: Where's that?

MR. CHABOT: Peace River country. The Alberta Peace River country.

The government has given serious indication that they are going to have massive secondary industry development in the Province of Alberta. I am wondering if the Minister will feel that if this world-scale steel-making enterprise in Alberta does materialize, it will negate the possibility of ever establishing a steel industry in the Province of British Columbia. Or will you set up tariffs such that Alberta won't be able to export its steel and compete in the British Columbia market?

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if Alberta does set up that form of massive steel-making facility, a steel mill will never materialize in British Columbia.

Talking about smelters and so forth, I made a passing reference to copper smelters when I was speaking before, but the green light disallowed me from speaking on it any longer. But there's no doubt in my mind and no doubt in the minds of British Columbians that a copper smelter was on line in this province until it was destroyed by that government over there. Absolutely destroyed. That copper smelter was to be established in the riding of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), but he destroyed the future jobs of his constituency.

HON. MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

MR. CHABOT: Virtually destroyed them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MR. PHILLIPS: Just like he's destroyed jobs everywhere.

MR. CHABOT: I suggest to you that a copper smelter will never be established in British Columbia as long as that government is in office. Thank God that that won't be very long.

We are a major copper-producing province, really. We have a great variety of ore bodies in the province which are just waiting for the defeat of this government for their development. We have in the Kamloops area a copper deposit that has a potential of 7,000 tons per day. That's the potential of these deposits of copper in the Kamloops area. We have a potential increase in production in the Highland Valley of 25,000 by Bethlehem Copper. We have Catface Mountain, wherever that is — 50,000 tons per day production.

[ Page 1180 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, that's up in Omineca. Catface Mountain — 50,000 tons per day potential. We have all this potential here and yet we don't have the wherewithal to establish a smelter in British Columbia. We have another one of 3,000, a smaller one at Goosly Lake — Sustut Peak, Houston, Island Valley. Stikine River, again — 85,000 tons per day in two different mines. Houston, Highland Valley again — 50,000 tons potential; that's Valley Copper. Greenwood again, Cache Creek, McLeese Lake, Dawson Range…and it goes on and it goes on.

Yet these ore bodies will never be developed as long as we have that government in office, because this government has virtually destroyed the mining industry, destroyed the incentive of exploration, destroyed the incentive of putting these ore bodies into production, because it's not economical to do so.

Yet that Minister sits there and is not willing to confer with his colleague, because they have this hang-up of the takeover of the mining industry in British Columbia. Yet you will not get off your fat stats and provide additional jobs in British Columbia. These 15 major ore bodies are ready for development. In case the Minister doesn't know and in case the Minister didn't hear me say it a little earlier in another speech, there is a potential of 6,000 direct jobs, which are not being developed because of the punitive legislation by that Minister who would rather spend his time patting a gopher while the mines are closing down in British Columbia. (Laughter.) No, it's serious.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Talking to a gopher.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, talking to a gopher. I'm sorry. I thought he patted gophers.

MR. PHILLIPS: How can you laugh when people are jobless in the mining industry?

MR. CHABOT: There are some 40,000-odd indirect jobs that could be created forthwith if this government wouldn't constantly threaten the investment dollars in this province. You read articles like what just appeared in a recent Financial Post about one of the Ministers: "The Man Who Baffles Businessmen." Well, not only does that Minister over there baffle the businessmen; this whole government baffles the investment dollar in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Woody Woodchips.

MR. CHABOT: No wonder it's been vanishing and going elsewhere with the kind of irresponsible statements made by that government over there. I assure you, Mr. Minister, that a copper smelter is not on the horizon in British Columbia, and I assure you that I strongly suspect that a copper smelter will never be constructed in British Columbia as long as you are government. Never!

MR. LEWIS: Gloom and doom.

MR. CHABOT: I don't care whether you have 43,001 studies, be it on steel or be it on copper; you don't bring development by studies. I just read an article…. The Minister has the audacity and the gall to stand in here and attack a man who has probably contributed more to British Columbia than any other man in the history of this province. He talks about the B.C. Railway.

Well, there's the Minister of fiasco, Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). They had to appoint the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) to make him look good, he's so stupid. No, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the Minister of Economic Development?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I challenge you to a duel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Housing on a point of order? Would the Hon. Member continue, please? There was no point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I challenge you to an IQ test. He knows his A B Cs.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have just received my April 4, 1975, volume 9, No. 5, MLAs at Work. Talk about a fiasco. They talk about the B.C. Rail railcar plant. That's a major fiasco on the B.C. Rail. It was to open on January 1, 1974. Look how far behind schedule it is. If that government had been able to manage anything, that railcar plant would have been opened some considerable time ago. But no. There possibly wouldn't have been the serious shortage there has been of cars if this railcar plant had been opened when it had first been projected by the government.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: That's a good question, Mr. Chairman. When will the first car be ready? A plant that was projected to cost $5 million, and it cost $8

[ Page 1181 ]

million — a 60 per cent overrun in costs over a two-year period. A disgrace! Do you really believe, Mr. Minister, that this railcar plant will ever be able to produce cars and sell on the open market with those kind of capital costs attached to it? That's a good question. It's 60 per cent beyond its projected costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll subsidize.

MR. CHABOT: Of course they'll subsidize it. Everybody knows that. If anything is working right, this government destroys it, just like they have done with the B.C. Rail. And now we have this bungling car plant which is being constructed now at an overrun of 60 per cent over a two-year period.

MR. LEWIS: You're negative! You're negative!

MR. CHABOT: And they have the audacity to talk about the overrun on the Columbia River treaty. Can you imagine? A 30-some-odd per cent overrun over a period of 10 years, and here we see the evidence of how they operate. I can imagine the kind of overruns they'll have on Site 1 of the Peace River power project. I can imagine the kind of overruns they'll have on Surprise Rapids as well, both projected to cost $500 million.

I'll tell you, if the overruns are as great as they are here, we will have at those two sites — already at some of the most expensive power in North America — but I assure you those two sites will develop the most costly power, if the overruns are equal to those on the B.C. Rail car plant, in the world.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, far more substantial costs than coal. The Minister over there, the Minister who doesn't know anything, who is chewing gum over there, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), talks about Social Credit bungling. He doesn't know what I am talking about because I am talking about Site 1, an initiative of that government over there — $500 million to develop 700,000 kilowatts of power. If he knows his arithmetic he'll find out how good a deal the Mica Dam is.

Getting back to the steel mill, Mr. Chairman, I remember very vividly when the Premier came back from that European safari. He came back from Germany and he had a steel plant on stream, almost. It was just a matter of days until such time as we would have a steel plant in British Columbia, only, of course, he wanted to back that up. He had to go to England as well. Oh, yes, he was assured it was just a matter of days or weeks until there was a major announcement about a steel plant and about one of the European companies who would make a major investment in British Columbia.

Well, that was a great failure. There has been very little action. That's all we have from that department over there, Mr. Chairman: very glossy statements about what is liable to take place in British Columbia. After having waited, waited, and waited again, nothing takes place.

I asked the Minister very briefly a few moments ago what is taking place on the joint transportation development programme in northern British Columbia. I haven't had any answers. I don't know if he answered the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) when he asked the question of the link between Ashcroft and Clinton. I asked him very briefly as well: is the Minister going to tell us whether there is going to be a rail link between the BCR and the CNR or the CPR at Ashcroft? This is part of the great programme of northern development, the joint transportation programme. There are going to be other major links as well. There is a line to be built at Clapham to Telegraph Creek. A new Canadian National Railway line is to be built from Terrace to a point of connection at or near Groundhog on the BCR Dease Lake line. I'm sure that the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) is quite interested in seeing this rail link at Groundhog built so that there can be development in the Terrace area.

What about the future extension of the B.C. Rail line from Dease Lake to a point at or near Lower Post? What's taking place in the major programmes of rail expansion to make it possible to harvest the resources of the northwestern part of British Columbia.

We know full well what's happened. It appears to me, and I want the Minister to confirm it, that this whole programme of a rail link in the north — those hopes of the people have been dissipated because you brought in Bill 31, which denied the opportunity of these ore bodies which exist in that part of the province from being developed. You've destroyed it entirely and consequently destroyed your grand plan of northern development.

You destroyed the hopes of those people in northwestern British Columbia who expected you to carry through with the establishment of 20,000 jobs in the province. Had these programmes materialized, rather than a vision, rather than PR, we wouldn't have the degree of unemployment that we're experiencing in British Columbia today. There would be 20,000 more jobs. Then instead of having 101,000 people unemployed, we would have substantially less. In fact, without Bill 31, we might have the same low rate of unemployment as there is in the prairie provinces. But no, this government, because of its negative attitude towards investment dollars in this province, has destroyed the opportunities of British Columbians to enjoy gainful employment.

Interjection.

[ Page 1182 ]

MR. CHABOT: I haven't touched on the field of mining, Mr. Minister, and I'll talk about that when the time comes. I'll talk about how the mining industry is dead, how you and your government have killed the industry in this province.

MR. LEWIS: Tell the truth.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has done one thing. I've got this press release and this is fairly fresh — February 26, 1975. It appears that each and every department wants to appoint one woman in his department. It appears they need a token woman in their department. Everybody seems to have this mania to have one woman. I think that rather than having token women in the various departments on an individual basis, the government or these various departments should give them equal and fair treatment, equal opportunity to advance in the various departments, rather than setting them up as token women in the departments. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has done the same thing.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems that the Economic Development department is preoccupied with one thing.

HON. MR. LAUK: Jobs! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Jobs! The Minister says preoccupied with jobs. We can believe that they have created one job in the last two and a half years. They've destroyed thousands of jobs in British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Fourteen thousand new ones in the civil service.

MR. CHABOT: That department is preoccupied. It appears to be that its only activity is the acquisition of land — primarily the rape of agricultural land. We know full well what you've done at Tilbury Island, or what you propose to do at Tilbury Island. Seven hundred and twenty-six acres of prime agricultural land is being moved into an industrial site.

HON. MR. LAUK: You're wrong again.

MR. CHABOT: Seven hundred and some odd acres of land. Unless the Minister's been overruled by the Land Commission, it's 726 acres — unless they've decided to remove some of the prime agricultural land, some of the best agricultural land we have in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's in the newspapers, Jim. He doesn't even read the morning paper.

MR. CHABOT: I wonder if the Minister will tell us whether he intends to destroy some of the prime agricultural land in the interior of this province as well.

HON. MR. LAUK: Check with your leader.

MR. CHABOT: Has the Minister consummated an agreement to purchase part of a Molson hop farm east of Kamloops? It's the finest agricultural land in the Kamloops area.

HON. MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

MR. CHABOT: Has the Minister purchased any of this land at the Molson hop farm for the purpose of an industrial park? If so, at what cost? What are the plans for the Molson hop farm land?

It appears you're preoccupied — and there's no doubt about it — with the establishment of industrial parks. That's one thing you've accomplished, I guess. Mind you, you've talked about it, you've set aside the land, you've spent the money. But there is one industrial expansion that I see where that Minister has been overruled. There's one Minister who has his claws into every portfolio of government, and that's the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

Thank God he overruled the Industrial Development Corp. on the matter of industrial expansion at Cowichan Bay. He issued a press release to say that he's overruled your department in the acquisition of land for a development at Cowichan Bay. This press release was November 26, 1974.

HON. MR. LAUK: You can't even read. Get somebody to read it for you.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'll tell you what it says. The Minister said:

"The possibility of Cowichan Bay, near Duncan, being developed to a major port and forest industrial centre has been ruled out by a recent decision of the government's Environment and Land Use Committee."

It goes on, without reading the whole thing:

"The task force was formed in June when the British Columbia Development Corp. expressed interest in acquiring" — and here's the specific — "over 1,000 acres of estuary and flood-prone land in the bay."

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister clearly indicates that your department had an interest in acquiring this land for major industrial expansion. Are you going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister's wrong, that that Minister is not correct in what he says in his

[ Page 1183 ]

press release of November 26, 1974?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I hope you'll stand up to deny it when you do.

I challenge the Minister to deny the fact that he had his eyes on the land in the Cowichan Bay for an industrial expansion programme.

Now the Minister wants me to sit down.

HON. MR. LAUK: Clearly what was meant by that press release and what is clearly the case is that the Development Corp., which is a Crown corporation directed by an independent group of free enterprise directors….

MR. CHABOT: Are you a director?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. (Laughter.) The NDP is bringing back free enterprise to B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're bringing it back?

HON. MR. LAUK: To clarify the Member's inquiry, it was the Crown corporation. I sit on the Environment and Land Use Committee, and I fully support the decision made by my colleagues to inform the Crown corporation…

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you fight with yourself all the time?

HON. MR. LAUK: …which was acting….

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: The board didn't make the Cowichan decision. It was an executive committee meeting, which I didn't attend. The Crown corporation proceeds along these lines all over the place. If you want independent Crown corporations, you're going to have this situation. It shows that this is a free and open government and the democratic process works.

The other point that's made is the copper smelter. The hon. gentleman suggested that there was going to be a copper smelter if it wasn't for this government.

Cominco announced that they would have put a copper smelter in if it wasn't, because they were turned down for a DREE grant. I have the press clipping up there. I usually throw my old press clippings away. The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) keeps them forever, but he didn't keep that one.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. R.A. Williams tables reports of the Ocean Falls Corp., British Columbia Cellulose and the Water Resource Service.

Hon. Mr. Lauk tables the 1974 annual report of the Department of Economic Development.

Mr. D.F. Lockstead from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's first report, which was read as follows and received:

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the Standing Orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to introduce the following private bill: An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia.

Your committee recommends that the petitioner by allowed to proceed with the bill.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

[ Page 1184 ]

APPENDIX

119 Mrs. Jordan asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

With respect to extra Departmental committees, commissions, task forces, and the like —

1. Have any special extra Departmental studies been established to date?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, (a) for what purpose was each such structure established and who are the members and (b) what, if any, were their total expense allowances to the latest available date?

The Hon. Eileen E. Dailly replied as follows:

"l. There have been six studies undertaken and completed within the last few months: (1) Advisory Committee for a Northeastern Community College; (2) Advisory Committee for an East Kootenay Community College; (3) Advisory Committee for a Northwestern Community College; (4) Advisory Committee for Post-secondary Education Services in the Powell River–Northern Vancouver Island Region; (5) Survey Report of Department of Education Library; and (6) Lower Mainland Community College Survey Committee.

"2. (a) Purposes:

"Studies (1), (2), (3), and (4) — To study post-secondary educational needs, assess resources and facilities, and to make recommendations on programs, staffing, facilities, and distribution of services in the four regions.

"Study (5) — To study present Department Library, and to make recommendations on space, staffing, and direction.

"Study (6) — To study population distribution, transportation systems, existing needs and resources relevant to colleges, and to make recommendations on size and administrative structure for Lower Mainland colleges.

"2. (a) Membership:

"Study (1) — Dr. B. Brown, Dawson Creek; Mrs. B. Gregory, Fort Nelson; Mr. M. Calliou, Chetwynd; Mr. R. Dutka, Fort St. John; Mr. W. Keunzel, Tomslake; Mr. A. Schuck, Fort Nelson; Mrs. E. Lucas, Baldonnel; Mr. A. Krassnick, Fort St. John; Mrs. D. Jeannotte, Rolla; Mr. F. Davies, Fort St. John; Mr. T. McEwan, Dawson Creek; Miss D. Pomeroy, Fort St. John; and Mr. Joe Weingart, Sunset Prairie.

"Study (2) — Mr. J. Pidgeon, Fernie; Dr. N. Fahmi, Fernie; Mrs. E. Madson, Invermere; Mrs. M. Engstrom, Canal Flats; Mr. J. Ratcliffe, Kimberley; Mr. J. Patterson, Kimberley; Mrs. D. MacKay, Cranbrook; Mr. D. Waurynchuk, Cranbrook; Mrs. L. Staples, Creston; Mr. P. Haines, Creston; Ms. J. Beaulac, Golden; Mr. O. Pecora, Golden; Mr. B. Swaney, Sparwood; Mrs. B. Taplin, Elkford; and Mr. P. Sims, Cranbrook.

"Study (3) — Mrs. H. Cap, Prince Rupert; Mr. G. Viereck, Prince Rupert; Mr. S. Simpson, Masset; Mr. B. McKay, New Aiyansh; Mr. L. Kozier, Terrace; Mr. W. Hutchison, Terrace; Dr. C. Ling, Kitimat; Mr. K. Muldo, Hazelton; and Mr. E. Redmond, Terrace.

"Study (4) — Ms. R. Taylor, Alert Bay; Mr. N. Sieffert, Comox; Mr. P. Glemitz, Port Hardy; Capt. R. Griffiths, Comox; Mr. M. Henderson, Campbell River; Mrs. O. Rousseau, Heriot Bay; Mrs. R. Barnett, Campbell River; Ms. J. Fanning, Cumberland; Mr. T. Ryan, Courtenay; Mrs. M. McRae, Powell River; Mrs. S. Cole, Powell River; Mr. R. Donovan, Gold River; Mr. M. Nagy, Holberg; and Mr. G. McGillivray, Nanaimo.

"These four committees are assisted and co-ordinated by: Ms. C. Miller, Dawson Creek; Mr. D. Shergill, Campbell River; Mr. P. Sims, Cranbrook; Mr. L.

[ Page 1185 ]

APPENDIX

Minsky, Terrace; Ms. H. L'Estrange, Burnaby; and Mr. L. O'Neill, Salmon Arm.

"Study (5) — Mr. I. Kemlo, Victoria.

"Study (6) — Dr. L. Marsh, Vancouver; Ms. H. Symonds, Vancouver; and Dr. G. Dickinson, Vancouver.

"2. (b) Total expense allowances as of March 13, 1975, for the six studies, $32,245."