[ Page 5533 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5533

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Kempf

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have the leave of the committee to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We have in the galleries this morning 40 students, with their teachers, who are guests of the Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver. These students are from Quebec City. They are here to enjoy British Columbia and this assembly. I might advise my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) that they come from the constituency represented by Hon. Claude Morin. I would ask the committee to welcome them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I should again draw to the attention of the House standing order 8. We have a very important debate this morning, and we only have seven members of the opposition in the House. I think perhaps this particular order ought to be read and explained to the House by yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As members know, it is the responsibility of each and every member to be in the House. It is beyond the control of the Chair to insist that members attend committee.

On the same point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I point out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that it only takes a couple of members of the opposition to keep that incompetent government in check.

MR. CHAIRMAN. That's not really a point of order, hon. member.

On vote 65: minister's office, $194,679.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to make a couple of comments about some of the debate of yesterday, particularly with regard to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who talked at length about the Vancouver Island pipeline. I won't go into this at length today, but I think it's important that the members understand a couple of things with regard to this whole matter.

First of all, it's important to realize why we're talking about a pipeline to Vancouver Island at all. There was a very conscious social decision made by this government to ensure that the last major population area of British Columbia not now served with natural gas should be served with natural gas as quickly as possible. It's a promise we made during the last election campaign and it's a promise we intend to keep, so that the people on this island can have their share of this resource. The costs of building that pipeline are increasing every year. We're prepared to go ahead and make sure that that gas lands on Vancouver Island at the earliest possible time.

I want to talk a bit about the comparison of the two routes which have been proposed in the past: the so-called northern route and the southern route. It's really beyond me to understand how anyone could take a look at those two routes on a map and in any way come up with similar costs of construction for them, as some people have attempted to do, including the member for Mackenzie. The northern route is 391 kilometres of new pipeline over some of the most adverse engineering conditions in British Columbia. It includes a mile-long tunnel — perhaps longer — through Casement Mountain. There are 30 river crossings, with the concurrent possibility of damage to fisheries. There are four compressor stations and over 140 kilometres of very tough engineering and environmental conditions.

The southern route, which is just 79 kilometres of new pipeline, using one river crossing and no tunnels and having no severe environmental or engineering problems, would cost — to land gas on Vancouver Island, without talking about anything else, including distribution on the Island — an estimated $125 million in 1980 dollars. The northern route, to land gas on Vancouver Island, without taking into consideration the distribution on the Island, is somewhat more than double that, in the amount of $262 million. The southern route is half as costly in terms of capital cost for construction.

I repeat that the northern route is major, unconventional construction, with extensive bedrock and excavation, large narrow canyons, unstable slopes with avalanche risks, a lot of difficulty as well in the geothermal areas of Mount Meager and 30 river crossings presenting a risk to salmon and steelhead fisheries, compared to a shorter route which has conventional construction on land at least and construction under water which is well engineered, well underway and completely feasible.

There is some talk about why we should have chosen B.C. Hydro over some of the other proponents of this line. I don't make any apologies for government making a decision in this area, because I think government's responsibility is to attempt to assess all of the questions and then make some decisions. That's what this government has done. B.C. Hydro has the opportunity for British Columbia control, both of its rates and of its new construction. It will have ongoing regulation by the B.C. Utilities Commission. It will have provincial control of its borrowing and financing. In my opinion, it has done far more engineering and feasibility studies and far more detailed surveys than any of the other proponents. In fact, B.C. Hydro is ready to go today in order that we can meet those in-service dates.

There are a couple of other matters in the consideration of these routes. I suppose that the most important one....

Certainly I understand the difficulty that the people of Powell River have with this selection, because, at least in the initial instance, Powell River would not be served with natural gas by the southern pipeline. That's not a unique situation, because there are a number of other areas of British Columbia not yet being served with natural gas. I recall that during my estimates in the last session the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was entreating the ministry, through me, to ensure that natural gas extension goes forward to Revelstoke,

[ Page 5534 ]

which is one of his communities. Other members in the House have asked me that natural gas service be extended to the Peace River, the Columbia Valley and a number of other areas. Those will have to be extended sometime in the very near future if we are to meet our commitment of ending our dependence on foreign imported oil in this province.

That is a commitment we intend to honour, and it will be a program of this government to extend natural gas to those areas not now served just as quickly as the capacity can be physically extended. Powell River, theSunshine Coast and Squamish will be part of those considerations as the government sets its priority for further extension of natural gas services beyond Vancouver Island. That will be done as a regular, ongoing program of government, and for good reasons.

The matter of a fertilizer plant.... I don't understand, first of all, how anyone could possibly believe that a fertilizer plant could only be built in one location of this province. We have fertilizer plants all over the world. We have fertilizer plants in Alaska and Alberta, where there aren't any of the conditions we have in British Columbia, such as deep-water ports and other things which I'm told are necessary for the fertilizer plant in British Columbia. But I can guarantee that if a fertilizer plant is feasible for this province, if it's an economically desirable and feasible project, it can be built in other areas besides Powell River. It will be built somewhere in British Columbia if it is economically and technically feasible.

I have invited the consortium which is involved in that fertilizer plant — Chieftain Oil of Calgary, Union Oil of California, British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, and Westcoast Transmission — to come before government and make some proposals. To be perfectly frank and honest with this assembly, we don't have much of a proposal before government for a fertilizer plant. We do have a very short prospectus with very little technical information from some companies who have said they wish to build a fertilizer plant in British Columbia.

I think as a good prudent government we need much more than that. We need some firm proposals. We need to come to some agreement on the price any company which builds a fertilizer plant will pay for the use of our natural gas, because if the product to come from any endeavour in this province using our natural gas is to be largely exported, as I understand this product would be, then I don't believe that the people of British Columbia would want their government to be selling that gas at highly subsidized domestic prices. We're a long way from reaching any agreement on the price that would have to be paid for British Columbia's natural gas — the people's natural gas — to develop this kind of industry. So I say again, there is a lot of work to be done between government and the industrial proponents. Also, the opportunity is available in many parts of British Columbia to develop this kind of industrial concern.

I want to talk a bit about the public hearings. The members opposite have very short memories. Public hearings on this matter were held. In 1972 there were extensive public hearings with the same players who were in the action this year. Westcoast Transmission, Centennial and British Columbia Hydro were all a part of those extensive public hearings held by the previous Social Credit government, beginning in the spring of 1972 and ending late in the year. The evidence given at those public hearings — we've had the opportunity to review it extensively — was basically the same as the evidence put forward to us during our consideration of the pipeline in the past year and a half.

One thing that has certainly changed is the amount of money required to build the pipeline. If the pipeline proposals had not been scuttled in 1972, following the election of the NDP government, we would have had a pipeline today for about half the cost. Those members opposite have very short memories. I don't know what happened as a result of those hearings. I know that the hearings ended just about the time the election was called. That was the last we ever heard about natural gas on Vancouver Island until this government was elected. I don't know why they decided that the people of Vancouver Island didn't deserve natural gas. But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when the members opposite were government they effectively denied the opportunity of natural gas to Vancouver Island citizens.

I would also like to refer to the short memory of the member for Mackenzie when he....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all I'd like to say that I'm not attacking anyone. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says I'm attacking Don Lockstead while he's away. Well, the member for Mackenzie, if he were really interested in the subject he raised last night, would have been here today to listen to the answer and to take part in the debate.

One thing even the member for Alberni would agree with is that I give answers to questions asked of me in the House. They may not always like the answers, but I give them.

With regard to the public hearing mentioned by the member for Mackenzie in this debate yesterday, I would just remind the members of the House again that public hearings were held. They were held very extensively; all of that evidence is available to the government and was part of the government's deliberations in making decisions.

I wonder about those members opposite sometimes. I mean, how do they really expect to have it both ways? How can you talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time? The member for Mackenzie says: "Hold public hearings." What did the NDP say in 1972? "Dump the public hearings. Scrap the public hearings. You don't need public hearings." I'm quoting the member for Vancouver East. He urged the government to abandon the proposed public hearings by the Utilities Commission on a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, and to give it to B.C. Hydro. That's what Mr. Macdonald said.

What did the NDP opposition leader in those days, Dave Barrett, say Monday? He said B.C. Hydro customers will be cheated if the government selects a private company instead of Hydro to supply gas to Vancouver Island. What else did Mr. Barrett say? "Barrett Says Government Should Build the Pipeline." "Opposition leader Dave Barrett called on Premier W.A.C. Bennett today to develop a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island as a public enterprise, instead of leaving it to private industry." "NDP Wants Hydro. Natural Gas Pipeline Still in Air." "Don't hold the public hearings; give it to Hydro." Mr. Chairman, those members opposite don't know what they're talking about; at least if they do, they talk about different things at different times. We had public hearings, we had the opportunity for a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island in 1972, and for some strange reason the NDP refused to give the people of Vancouver Island natural gas. We're going to give it to them, and they're going to be

[ Page 5535 ]

served by a resource which is in plentiful supply in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member for Skeena, I would remind all members that in the House we do not use the names of members; we refer to them by riding.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question with respect to the instruction given to the Utilities Commission with respect to rates and other matters, but particularly rates of B.C. Hydro as mentioned in a press release issued by the minister on March 20, 1981. He said: "The purpose of the directive" — that is, the directive to increase the interest-coverage ratio and debt-equity ratio of B.C. Hydro's finances — "is to require Hydro to achieve a financial position that allows it to borrow funds on the most economic terms available." A commendable approach, but I wonder how that fits in with the attainment that was tremendously lauded by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on May 9, 1980, to the effect that Hydro and the provincial government had received a triple-A rating from Moody's and Standard and Poor in the United States. According to the Minister of Finance, that attainment put Hydro precisely in the position of being able to borrow on the most economic terms available. That being the case, why is there the necessity of requiring basically an increase in rates in order that Hydro would have a higher degree of retained earnings to achieve that 1.3 to 1 interest-coverage ratio? Wasn't that obtained by the triple-A rating received from Moody's and Standard and Poor?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It would be helpful to know that for several years — at least six years — it has been policy within Hydro, through the policy of the board of directors, that they achieve the debt-equity relationship and interest ratio that we put in that order. However, with the commencement of the British Columbia Utilities Commission's regulation of British Columbia Hydro it wasn't good enough that that just be a board policy, because any regulatory authority must take into account just the things that it can see in terms of the responsibility and operation of Hydro and may not be able to take into account what would be an internal policy or for some other reason known only to the regulatory authority — or perhaps, taking it to some broader concept, may not agree with that policy. In the interests of attaining the policy which has been in place on a gradual basis over the last five or six years, it was felt by the government that in order to retain our good borrowing position and our triple-A rating, and to give Hydro the kind of position with relation to its debt equity and interest that other hydro corporations in Canada have, it was required that a directive be given to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: As I understand it, Hydro was maintaining that 1.3 to 1 ratio.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, they were not.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They were attempting to get there gradually.

MR. HOWARD: They were attempting to get there, but had not reached there.

It still seems passing strange that the Minister of Finance should have extolled the value of the triple-A rating by saying that that in itself gave Hydro the most advantageous rate in the marketplace. All I'm saying is that it seems passing strange that the triple-A rating, so the Minister of Finance says, did what the 1.3 to 1 ratio seeks to accomplish. The result is an increase in rates, if they desire to do that, in order to maintain that 30 percent of retained earnings. If they don't get it, they get it out of higher rates to the customers, having accomplished it both ways, by the sounds of things. In any event, it just puts into question the triple-A rating that was attained and given by Standard and Poor and Moody's in the United States. It puts into question the earlier statement of the Minister of Finance about the tremendous value that would be. I know the minister is shaking his head and saying no, that's not so. He's made his case and I make my case, that's all.

I want to talk very briefly, if I could, Mr. Chairman, about the aluminum Company of Canada's agreement with respect to what's loosely referred to as Kemano II — in other words the provisions of the agreement and the water licence issued in 1950 or around that period of time to give Alcan the right, extending over a 50-year period, to build dams and divert certain watercourses in the province in order to establish a certain level of hydroelectric potential and production for Alcan. Kemano II is and has been the generally accepted identification of that proposal and that provision by a great many people in the north who are to be affected by that. Admittedly, the minister saw fit sometime last year to take up the cudgels on behalf of Alcan and say: "O, no, it's not called Kemano II: the proper designation is the Kemano completion project." Alcan has been saying this for some time. All I'm putting across, Mr. Chairman, is that residents in Vanderhoof, Houston, Prince George, Smithers and all along the CN north line and Highway 16 have come to refer to the project as Kemano II. One falls into the habit of using that phrase to keep in tune with the opinion and the views that the residents in that area have.

One proposition that I want to put forward is this: Alcan is and will be the beneficiary of the licence and the right to dam and divert certain water in this province. The Aluminum Company of Canada is the holder of that water licence and is the signatory, along with the government, to a contract which the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) classified as a valid contract. Alcan is to reap the benefits of that particular project. Alcan was intent upon going full-scale, reflecting the conditions of the agreement one hundred percent.

A great deal of public opposition in the area developed, as you know, Mr. Chairman, regarding that proposal. In all of the earlier attempts by Alcan to condition the general public to accept the Kemano II or Kemano completion project, the government of the day, this government, was virtually silent in protecting the public interest. The minister made a few comments about there being a moratorium on the project. That wasn't a moratorium by any government decision; it was a moratorium that Alcan was talking about. The minister's concept of a moratorium was that they hadn't applied to proceed with the project.

Within the government — both at the cabinet committee level and at the public service deputy minister level — meetings had been held with Alcan to discuss the steps necessary to get to the point of having theKemano 11 or

[ Page 5536 ]

Kemano completion project proceed at a full-scale, one hundred percent level as contemplated in the water licence. The Aluminum Company of Canada, to its credit — and not to the credit of this government, because this government didn't do a blessed thing about it — and to the credit of the communities affected and proposed to be affected by that Kemano completion or Kemano II project, and to Alcan's credit, who responded to public interest and public pressure — alteration took place with respect to Alcan's desires.... Alcan indicated at one point that it would be necessary for Alcan to take other people's interests in the area into account and has proceeded along in that direction.

We must not lose sight of the fact that Alcan is to be the beneficiary. Alcan is the private corporation which holds what the Minister of Environment calls a valid contract with the government of B.C. It will be Alcan that has the increased power-generating capacity developed as a result of this project, to whatever extent it proceeds. Alcan will reap the monetary benefits, whether it uses the power for expansion of its smelting capacity or whether it sells the power to somebody else, as it does now with power surplus to its own needs by selling it to B.C. Hydro.

Alcan is currently embarking upon a series of meetings with the general public — with organizations and groups in that whole area and elsewhere — trying to explain its current position: how Alcan is interested in the multiple-use concept and how Alcan is going to protect the public interest. I see that basically as a conflict of interest. The conflict is that the Aluminum Company of Canada — a private corporation and the holder of what the Minister of Environment calls a valid contract to build those dams — cannot try to be, at the same time, the beneficiary of the project and the protector of the public interest. I submit to the minister that within our society the element charged with the responsibility of protecting the public interest is the government and this Legislature. This is the group elected to serve the interests of all the people.

The very existence of government carries with it that responsibility to preserve, enhance and protect the public interest. It should not be left to a private corporation, which is going to benefit from the hydroelectric project, to play the role of protector of the public interest. Regardless of what one may think about the Aluminum Company of Canada, its public image, its relationship to communities, its stature in the community, in Canada or elsewhere in the world, it is still playing both roles. I don't think that really serves the public interest to the full.

Alcan is a private corporation and is the holder of what the Minister of Environment classifies as a valid contract with the government. Alcan has a responsibility to itself to see that its interests are protected, enhanced and advanced. The government plays the other role and has the other responsibility. I'm inclined to think that as long as Alcan is permitted in an unrestrained way to represent itself as being the preserver and protector of the public interest in this regard, and is able to say, "Yes, we are going to respond to what we, Alcan, perceive as being the public interest in water use, agriculture, fisheries and the like," then the public interest is not being served adequately. That is the responsibility of government. I really do believe that it is the government's responsibility to conduct these public hearings, to conduct public information sessions, to point out what the government perceives as its responsibilities in preserving and protecting the public interest. As long as the government remains silent, then in the final analysis — regardless of the well-meaning intentions of the officers of Alcan — the balance sheet, not the public interest, regrettably, will be the final determinant as far as that company is concerned.

I'll mention a case in point. Last year there was a conflict over what the Aluminum Company of Canada perceived as its activity in preserving stocks of fish. It said it could do that in the Nechako River by releasing only a certain volume of water over the spillway at Skins Lake. It said that would be adequate to keep the water at a certain level and at a certain temperature in order to ensure that the fish stocks in that river were not killed by the level of water or by an unduly high water temperature.

That matter was resolved with the federal Fisheries department and Alcan through the courts, and the courts said they had to release this amount of water. Alcan is currently talking about an alternative approach. The alternative is not to spill water over the top of the spillway at Skins Lake, but apparently to drill or drive a diversion tunnel which will take water not from the top but from the bottom of the reservoir, where it is much cooler than it is on the surface. Releasing colder water out of the bottom of the reservoir will presumably keep the water level and certainly the water temperature in the Nechako at a level which Alcan seems to think is satisfactory for the preservation of fish.

Whether that is so or not I'm not really competent to determine, but I make the point to show that Alcan has embarked upon this second course of expanding its role in preserving the public interest by making a determination that basically is the responsibility of government. Yes, the Federal fisheries department is involved. The provincial government is also involved. I'm going to get to that now.

The Industrial Development Act is a statute passed by this Legislature in 1949 or 1950. The agreement with Alcan was entered into pursuant to that act, which legalized the water licence and said they could do certain things. There is a provision in the Industrial Development Act that says any agreement entered into under that act — and the agreement entered into under it is the agreement with Alcan — shall contain a provision protecting the fisheries to the extent that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council so decides. I'm paraphrasing and not quoting any exact words — I don't recall them — but that was the force of the law.

The agreement signed with Alcan contained no such provision, no reference whatever to the preservation and protection of fisheries, even though the statute said it could be done. There is a further provision in the Industrial Development Act that states that the agreement, or any agreement entered into under that act — and it's the agreement with Alcan that we're talking about — can be varied if it was legal to vary it in the first instance. It was legal. The statute said that contract or any agreement under it could contain a provision relating to the preservation and protection of fisheries. A further section said — if you missed it the first time around — that if it's not in the agreement the first time around you can go back and alter that agreement.

It's nice that the government has that responsibility, the statutory authority to proceed in the direction of preserving the public interest insofar as the fisheries are concerned, and to say: "We, the government of the province of British Columbia, so authorized by this Legislature, are now going to deal with Alcan and discharge our" — that is, the government's — "public responsibility for the preservation of the fisheries and include in that agreement a provision so protecting them." So long as there's an absence of any activity in that

[ Page 5537 ]

regard, and it's left to the Aluminum Company of Canada, the holder of this so-called valid contract, to proceed to take what it understands from its point of view is action to preserve fisheries, then we're in that conflict-of-interest position again. What Alcan is proposing to do may be quite correct and adequate from a fisheries and biological point of view. But I submit that it should not be left to a private corporation to make that determination. I submit this is where the government's responsibility lies.

It's not sufficient for the government to say: "Well, we have the Utilities Commission Act and we have the B.C. Utilities Commission, and under that act, if an application is made for an energy certificate to proceed to build those dams, then we might have public hearings somewhere down the road." I submit that government has got to be involved in this from the very beginning and represent the interests of the general public in that area, and not let Alcan, as the holder of the licence and beneficiary of the project, be able to proceed and make all the decisions, statements and examinations and pass itself off as the protector of the public interest, do everything that it perceives as correct to do, and then, somewhere down the road, end up before a public hearing. I submit that government should be involved in that process right from the beginning, protecting the public interest.

There are municipalities involved in that area. There are municipalities that require a domestic water supply and have an interest in agricultural land that is within the municipalities. They're interested in the water table. They're interested in the flows in the Nechako River as well. There are municipalities on the other side of the divide of those waters that flow into the Skeena too that have a concern. It makes me wonder why it is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who made quite a point a while ago about attendance in the House, has now absconded from the House. He's not even here to pay attention to the subject matter in which he, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, should be interested. In fact, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is very seldom in the House. He makes an entrance right at the beginning, makes a big splash and then he takes off. He flits in, raises frivolous points of order and so on.

This is a matter of tremendous interest to municipalities in that area, because municipalities will have visited upon them whatever awkward affects there might be of Alcan proceeding to do whatever it decides to do, subject, of course, to some hearing process. We can't escape from the fact that the government has identified the contract with Alcan as being a valid one. I think in law you will find that if government has said, as it has said, that this is a valid agreement, any hearing process under the Utilities Commission Act won't mean very much. It will mean a great deal more if the government would only activate itself now to serve the public interest.

Apart from that, B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation, has a vested interest in the Kemano II project. As I said earlier, B.C. Hydro now buys power from Alcan which is surplus to Alcan's needs. That was part of the difficulty last year which saw Alcan in a conflict with the federal Fisheries department over the amount of water that should be released over the Skins Lake spillway. Alcan says: "We are releasing sufficient water to protect the fisheries." What they were saying on the other side was: "We want to keep that reservoir as filled up as we possibly can in order to run the water out through the tunnel complex and the pen stocks into Kemano, to produce the maximum amount of electrical energy that we can because we've got a contract to sell it to B.C. Hydro. We're bringing in an income of something in the neighbourhood of $1 million a month, selling what was identified as surplus electrical generating capacity to B.C. Hydro."

That's an example of a conflict between private interest and the public interest. This government, maybe through some connivance with B.C. Hydro — maybe it was some agreement with B.C. Hydro — sought not to interfere in that conflict. There was the conflict. Alcan says: "We keep the reservoir full to the limit. We generate as much electricity as we can at Kemano because we can sell that electricity to B.C. Hydro for $1 million a month." You put that on one side of the ledger and on the other side of the ledger you put the interest of the general public in fisheries matters that should have been a prime consideration of this government, and on which side of the equation did Alcan opt to fall? They opted to proceed with keeping as much water in the reservoir as they could to produce as much electricity as they could in order to sell it to B.C. Hydro. It was only through the intervention of the courts that the federal Fisheries department was able to make the case that by Alcan proceeding in that direction they were, in fact, injuring the fisheries potential of the Nechako River. There's an example that I give, only to point out that there is a conflict between the private and the public interest. The private interest is served by Alcan; the public interest — at least in theory as far as this government is concerned — is to be served by the government.

Alcan has an interest in seeing that Kemano II or the Kemano completion project proceeds right through to the fall. A brochure which B.C. Hydro issued sometime last year, projecting their load demand into the 1980s and the source of electrical energy to provide for that load, included a provision which had Alcan purchase.... In other words, part of their projection contained the anticipation — indeed, the hope as far as B.C. Hydro was concerned — that Alcan would be able to proceed with its Kemano II or Kemano completion project and create additional electrical energy capacity. B.C. Hydro was there prepared to buy that. It was in their forecasts. They were prepared to buy and desirous of buying three-quarters of the additional electrical generating capacity at Kemano. I submit that that may well be one of the other reasons that this government and this minister are relatively silent, and by silence are permitting Alcan to be cast and represent itself in the role of preserving and protecting the public interest. I submit to you that Alcan cannot play both of those roles.

It's not going to be very helpful if that situation prevails. We have many instances in this province of cases where government has abandoned the public interest and passed on the preservation of that public interest to a private corporation. The Alcan agreement is a prime case in point, Mr. Chairman. The Alcan agreement was signed for a 50-year period. A water licence was issued in 1950 for a 50-year period, valid until the year 2000. The government of that day completely disregarded the provision in the statute that said they should preserve the public interest insofar as fisheries are concerned. It completely disregarded any consideration of what future generations may desire to see happen by giving Alcan a carte blanche licence for a 50-year period. It completely disregarded — in fact, it didn't even consider, as, admittedly, most people were not considering at that time — environmental matters. I think that is a case in point of a government visiting upon future generations the results of its short-sighted policy.

[ Page 5538 ]

Corporations in this land do their planning and make their activities contingent upon looking as far into the future as they possibly can. Governments have short-term advantages they look to; governments tend to look to the next election. That's what happened in that period of time, because one of my predecessors representing this constituency, E.T. Kenney, was the Minister of Lands and Forests in the then coalition government that consummated and negotiated that agreement with Alcan and was the father or the mother of the Industrial Development Act. That was a very short-sighted look at the situation. Alcan, a worldwide multinational corporation, had a vision that projected Alcan's interests at least 50 years into the future. We are now seeing what that can mean.

I submit that as long as this or any other government persists in playing a role of silence when it comes to the public interest, Alcan is going to go its own merry way and do things as its balance sheet, its board of directors and the profit motive dictate. The public interest will come second in that regard. I'm not maligning Alcan in saying this. I'm just putting forward a statement of facts that basically neither Alcan or any other private corporation will disagree with. They know where their interests are and what they perceive they should do, and they're going to proceed to do it. As long as government remains silent, the general public is going to be the loser in that situation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a few words to the debate on this ministry. I think one thing we lose sight of is that a major part of this ministry is mining. The opposition in this House would perhaps not like to discuss or debate the subject of mining, because it is a black mark on their record as government that many people in this province are prone to forget about. We are often criticized for going back into their record, but this is one item which we refuse to overlook. Mining is the number two industry in this province.

I have some personal experience in terms of the condition in which that government left this industry at the time the government changed in 1975. By personal experience I'm referring to my own responsibility as Minister of Finance and the problems we faced at that time due to the economy generally — significantly focused on the drastic drop in revenues from the mining industry — and the decisions which had to be made by our government as a result of those activities — basically a policy of leaving resources in the ground and taxing them so that there would be no incentive or attraction to that industry. Ask anyone in the mining industry if that is not a fact of life.

Just to briefly explain the significance of this, in late 1974 and 1975 Price Waterhouse and Co. were requested to do a report for the Mining Association of British Columbia. The results indicated that the mining industry was then in deep financial trouble. Thousands of jobs had been lost, new investment had declined sharply and — listen to this, Mr. Chairman — the level of exploration was at its lowest in more than a decade. That's the point that I want to stress here today.

Also among the highlights of that study were the following. Three mines were closed in 1974 and many others undertook substantial production cutbacks resulting in the layoffs of thousands of workers. Return on investment decreased by more than 50 percent compared to 1973 — that is, that drop took place in 1974 — helping to further discourage the already dismal investment climate in British Columbia.

The report states that capital flow to mining companies was also reduced by more than one-half, but taxes more than doubled. This became clearly evident in 1974 when several major companies announced plans for cutting back investment in the B.C. mining industry and diversifying into other areas and other industries.

Finally, the Price Waterhouse and Co. report states that the overall return on investment within the industry was reduced in 1974 to 12.7 percent, barely a percentage point higher than the return given for investment in high-grade corporate bonds with no risk. That's a clear indictment of the record of that government which should not be forgotten.

I'd like to cite a case which is most typical of the results of that policy, because mining in this province is comprised of a multitude of small operations. If there's one thing we must respond to, it's the needs of the small businessman in British Columbia. The example I have is the record of a small business company called Amex Exploration Services Ltd. of Kamloops. In 1972 Amex Exploration Services Ltd. had a staff of 46 in the city of Kamloops. At election time in 1975 this company had a staff of four involved in exploration services.

Just listen to the trend in terms of of their employment and the exploration contracts which they had. In 1972 Amex Exploration had 216 exploration contracts; in 1973 they had 55 exploration contracts; in 1974 they had 40 exploration contracts; and in 1975 they had only 15 exploration contracts. So here is a small company in British Columbia which in a four-year period dropped down to almost no exploration contracts from a significant number of 216; who dropped down from a staff of 46 in the city of Kamloops to a staff of four people. The individuals owning that firm had to remortgage their own homes and fell $37,000 in debt. Today, working year-round, this company is operating with a full staff of 40 people. One of their company principals has now stated: "Things have never looked better; all of the old debts have been paid."

All I want to say, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this subject is that we should not forget in this House perhaps the blackest mark against the record of the former government of this province and the impact it had on small business and on the individuals in those businesses. Their legislation, which was designed to leave resources in the ground, literally blew apart dozens of small operations in this province and caused the mining industry to drop to nothing.

You only have to remember the statements made by their leader when as Premier on January 20, 1973, he stated as follows: "We are not going to say, 'No more mining, no more extraction,' but unless we can get a better deal for what we're doing we will leave the ore in the ground, and I mean it." That's the former leader — now leader of the NDP — who stated that resources should be left in the ground and who imposed the royalties of those days.

Mr. Chairman, it's not going to happen again. That's what the members of this side of the House say, and the people of this province should not forget it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of quick comments on the points made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). First of all, I just want to clear up the matter of the directive given to the B.C. Utilities Commission for Hydro. One of the reasons for the triple-A rating was that Hydro was attempting to achieve that equity ratio, and that interest-coverage ratio became necessary because

[ Page 5539 ]

Hydro wasn't regulated; it was okay for that to be just a policy of the board, but once regulation came in, something different had to be done.

Mr. Chairman, those people on the other side should get together. Yesterday the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was criticizing a private company, Quinsam Coal, for not taking its responsibility to heart and going around to the public and explaining its position. Today the member for Skeena criticizes a private company for going around the country developing its position.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister should stop distorting what people say in this chamber. Stop twisting the facts and the truth, Mr. Minister. He should not be permitted to get away with that kind of distortion of fact, Mr. Chairman. I did not say what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. While in committee, all members can speak as many times as they wish to an issue. If any member feels that a point he has made in previous debate must be clarified, he has equal opportunity in committee to stand up, make that point, and qualify any statements that have been wrongly attributed to him. I'm sure all members know of the committee process.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Member, don't say those things if you don't want me to comment about them.

MR. HOWARD: Stop twisting the truth; you know what I said. You're the villains in this case, not Alcan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was being criticized for allowing, through the Utilities Commission Act, that final decision-making be in cabinet's hands. Today the member for Skeena tells me that we should now take that decision-making somewhere else. He says the government shouldn't let the Utilities Commission have any say in this but should rather make its decisions first, before we really know what the positions are.

Mr. Chairman, it's true that meetings were held over this period of time between the government and representatives from the Aluminum Company of Canada to talk about their project and the long-standing agreement that was passed by legislation in this House, allowing them, under the terms of that agreement, to do certain things. But it isn't true that those meetings were held to devise ways in which Alcan could complete its project; rather those meetings were held to see how in the fullness of time — given the cooperation among all of the players — the public interest could be served. The member for Skeena says that Alcan is making decisions that should be made by government. Well, Mr. Chairman, Alcan isn't making any decisions; Alcan is attempting to find ways in which they can make a project more acceptable to the public, in order that they may make application to the government, if they decide that the project should go ahead at all. When Alcan made its original statement about going into a different kind of public process, it said quite clearly that it was rethinking its position, and maybe it would have to take an entirely different position with regard to the Kemano completion. It's the company's business to rethink its position and come back to the government after that position has been established. So far as I know, at the present time that position has not been established by the Aluminum Company of Canada.

The member said that the government should be involved in the process from the beginning. Well, at the present time there is no process. Alcan, as a private company, is attempting to develop a position in which it will come to government. I think it would certainly be precipitous, on behalf of government, to attempt to legislate things into a process which hasn't really begun yet, one which we don't know whether we'll ever get off the ground if the conditions are impossible. I can tell that member one thing for sure — perhaps a couple of things. Alcan has been told this and agrees; that's the reason they have begun to rethink their position. Regardless of the fact that we have an agreement — legislated in this House many years ago — the Aluminum Company of Canada has been told that conditions are different today than in the 1950s, and that public perceptions are different. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that in the broad public perception, I guess nobody understands the difference between Kemano II and Kemano completion. I think it's important to say that Alcan, the government — almost everybody involved — has no intention of ever proceeding with what is known as Kemano II. I think that should be put on the record, even though it's not understood very clearly by many people outside the areas concerned. I think the people in the riding of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) very clearly understand those distinctions; they know exactly which rivers are which, which dams are which and which reservoirs are which, because they've taken a keen interest in the whole subject, as they should.

I can guarantee to this House that there will be no Kemano completion without an application from the Aluminum Company of Canada to the British Columbia Utilities Commission. At the time that application comes forward, there will be full public hearings in which everyone who has an interest in this matter will have the opportunity to fully debate the need for fisheries protection, environmental protection, levels-of-water protection, and all the concerns being voiced among the public today. The Aluminum Company of Canada knows that; the Aluminum Company of Canada has accepted it. It's a fact that it will not happen without the full public hearings, and that requirement of the Utilities Commission to make recommendations to the government. Then the political decision would be made by the government, as the member for Skeena seems to want to have done in advance. But at the present time this government has no request from Alcan for a project. I don't know whether we ever will have one, but if we do I can guarantee that it will be subject to full and complete public hearings held in the communities involved, and offering full participation by the communities involved.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, that was the same minister who guaranteed to this House that his heroin treatment program would work as well.

The minister said, and I'll paraphrase his remarks, that Alcan has been advised that conditions are different now and therefore we have other things to do. Can he tell us when Alcan was told that? Would he also be prepared to table all of the documentation about those meetings with Alcan so the general public can see what in fact was happening at the public service level and at the ministerial level? Because the things which were happening there are not in accordance with what the minister has just said. There was the desirability to expedite and assist Alcan in that project. The minister knows

[ Page 5540 ]

that to be true, and the information he's giving to the House is not in accordance with what he knows. I ask him: would he mind tabling all of the relevant correspondence and documents so the general public can see what took place?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of almost being unparliamentary, I would like to say to the Member for Skeena that that's absolute baloney; there were never meetings between me and Alcan, or between senior officials of my ministry and Alcan, to "expedite" their project. Meetings were held with Alcan. There are no documents. You sit down with people and talk with them. We don't sit down with a scripted scenario when we sit down with people who are interested in the development of this province, or with whom we have some difficulties in accepting their proposals. If I could table some documents, I would. But I don't have any to table.

I advise the member to go back to public statements that I've made over the past year and a half or more since I've been Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and he'll find that those statements were consistent. From the beginning we advised the Aluminum Company of Canada that there would be no Alcan project without public hearings, and I say that again: there will be no project without full public hearings held in the communities and fully participated in by those communities and anyone else who holds an interest in this project.

MR. HOWARD: The minister said there are no documents with respect to those meetings. I have some. Maybe they're falsified. It's not up to me to table them. You're the minister, your department held the meetings, and people in your department and the cabinet sent memos back and forth about those particular meetings. Don't tell me there are no documents; there are. You know there are, and what you're telling the committee is not in accordance with the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it helps if we address the Chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't have any documents of meetings that I've held with Alcan, and I'm not aware of any that my deputy minister has. If you have some I'd love to see them, and I'd ask you either to table them or to send me copies. I'll be very careful with them. I don't know to which documents that member refers, and I don't think he does either.

MR. HOWARD: The documents I have are the unshredded ones.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, where are they? I'd love to have them, unshredded or shredded. Send them over to me. You don't have them.

MR. HOWARD: You've seen them. You know what they are.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Send them over to me. Put them in a brown paper envelope.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I note the minister was talking earlier about his consistency. Probably the only consistency I've ever noted from that minister is his total aversion to the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Let him go. He doesn't know any better.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is an unparliamentary remark. I would ask the member if he would withdraw.

MR. COCKE: Oh, is that unparliamentary? I think the behaviour is unparliamentary, but I will certainly withdraw.

While I listen to this exchange I note with a good deal of humour that not much is being said by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is equally concerned and has been quite outspoken about his concern. As a matter of fact, when he gets back up to Omineca he takes his government on. He's very careful not to down here, but up there he suggests very strongly that he takes them on.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, he has spoken in this debate, has he? If he has, I haven't noted that he's been doing very much about Kemano II.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you're trying to give me a message.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be, hon. member, that we...

MR. COCKE: Are we on some vote or other?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...are dealing with vote 65.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether or not you and I have the same kind of hearing. I'm hearing me talk about that vote, the minister, the problems around Kemano II and about a difference of opinion that two members have had. Now I'll get on with some other aspects.

First, I'd like to talk about that little former Minister of Finance, who is now a Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who got up and did his mission today. Since we have had the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources up, I have noted that there has been a cabinet minister a day getting up and doing his penance, all to be sent to Kamloops. He was giving us a very sad story about a little corporation in Kamloops — a private firm — called Amax.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I gather it wasn't Amax, Mr. Member. It's a supplier for frontier mining exploration, I presume. He indicated very clearly that during those dark days — which, incidentally, reflect an actual increase in mining production in the province, but that's neither here nor there....

There were bad times. As we got into 1975 with the prices down, we couldn't expect that anything would flourish. The biggest problem that we had in the province was a chap by the name of Turner, who still doesn't really know where he's

[ Page 5541 ]

going to land. Some predicted that he might land as leader of the Conservative Party back east. That gives the Liberals many shivers. He was then Finance minister, and he refused to accept the royalty as being an accountable expense for tax purposes. We noted that there was a migration of exploration. The first noting of that migration took place in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and it even took place in good old staid Ontario. It makes me a little bit sick to listen to all this talk about those terrible times. For a very short time this province had a progressive government. Out of the last 29 years, for three years and four months the province has been blessed with a government that at least took account of human needs. However, this poor government that we have now are under fire. To cover their incompetence, they continually try to go back to those three years and four months. It has to be the most insipid effort I've ever seen, because they've been government for five years. For example, the minister was talking about the pipeline to Vancouver Island. We had three years and four months. They've been back in government for five years and just now he's talking about the pipeline.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right, and they were in government for years and years — 17 years prior to that.

I would think it's very difficult to get rational people to grab and hold on to those arguments. I suggest that there's a pattern here. It's a pattern that I'm not particularly fond of. I'd like to discuss that pattern for just a second. What does the pattern involve? First and foremost it involves films. We had the minister and his energy policy filmed. Well, that's marvellous. Lots and lots of taxpayers' money goes into that. It creates a little employment. But you know, Mr. Chairman, they wasted the taxpayers' money. They ran the film up against a very popular final hockey game and two or three other very popular TV series. I would think that there were not too many people who caught a glimpse of that film unless their TV dial stuck by accident.

What did he do then to waste more money? He hired a major polling service to go around the province and ask the folks how they liked the film — another monumental waste of money, and all in the name of image-building. It makes one a little bit fed up to see this kind of waste. But it's not really something that we didn't somewhat anticipate. What led us to anticipate this kind of waste from this minister? Well, his record led us to anticipate this kind of waste. Where does he get his record? It was not as a member of the opposition, when he was a member for that short period of time, wasting the taxpayers' money, raising arguments about children being kept by the welfare department in the Empress Hotel, and other false accusations. No, it was when he was Minister of Health. He showed then that he didn't have the ability to conserve money. He wasted money, and as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, the heroin treatment program is the best example.

This relates to this vote, because the Premier should have been thinking about that when he appointed this minister to that new portfolio. Now there's no question he had to get him out of Health. He had to get him out of there because he was an embarrassment to the entire province, to the community and to the government. He's an embarrassment to this government, and their standards are right down at the bottom. So to be an embarrassment to this government, one has to be right down there, as the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development knows. And I'll bet you behind those closed doors he tells him that too. I'll bet you he says: "Look, you're an embarrassment."

Further, to carry on his most embarrassing behaviour, he goes out and hires Bert Price's daughter — Bert Price, who used to sit in this House; that little hoe-maker from Vancouver; that very set, firm Socred; nice little guy — nothing against him, George — nice little chap. This ministry hired Marie Taylor, who had absolutely no background whatsoever in mining, energy, mineral resources or anything else, to head up the Utilities Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's nepotism.

MR. COCKE: That's right, nepotism at arm's length.

AN HON. MEMBER: What the hell does that mean, nepotism at arm's length?

MR. COCKE: If that doesn't get you, nothing will.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Where's Allen Garr? That's a quotable quote.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a good one, arm's length nepotism.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think when these other cabinet ministers sort of joke around about it we must remember that they were party to this. There's nothing wrong with hiring the child of a Socred, providing the child of a Socred had some kind of background that would indicate there was a reason to hire her.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against women. I'm going to tell Yvonne.

MR. COCKE: First and foremost, depending....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against women in the marketplace.

MR. COCKE: I can hardly hold a straight face on the remarks of that minister. He's got me all broken up, shaken up. I just don't know what to say until I regain my composure.

Mr. Chairman, my criticism is that the minister is irresponsible. Yet he did it before in his old portfolio. He appointed the same person to head up the VGH board when he took it under his administration. She's phenomenal. Not only can she look after hospitals, she can look after the Utilities Commission. Where will we find her next? If he is moved to some other ministry, we can expect to find Marie Taylor popping up there too, regardless. I guess he has a shortage of friends. Anyway, that's the price we pay. All the films and polls are shades of a minister who really doesn't pay attention to what he's doing, looks after his friends, and then has some irrelevant minister stand up in the course of the debate to make an irrelevant statement that they hope will carry as far as Kamloops.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're making it hard for women.

[ Page 5542 ]

MR. COCKE: I suggest that the next person to make some contribution to this debate should be the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who's telling us off the cuff that he's sort of supporting this minister. I would like to see him make it official. I'd like him to get up and say: "Hey, we agree on Marie Taylor, the waste of money on those films, the waste of money on the poll and the waste of money on the heroin treatment program." Down the pit went $16 million! If that minister will get up and tell me that he agrees with this kind of behaviour which has been consistently bad all the way down the line.... I find the way the minister handled this whole question between him the member for Skeena very difficult to accept. Let the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development get up and tell us all about it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just before he does that, I.... My deputy had to go out to make a telephone call, but I just gave him congratulations. Under his management the ministry must have developed some fantastic policies, because the member for New Westminster can't find any to criticize and instead turns to his usual course of.... I don't mind him assassinating my character, because I'm in this House and I can take it; if I couldn't I'd leave. But he has the rather pathetic habit of attacking people who have no way of responding to him, and that's generally people outside this House. I think if anybody is embarrassed around here, I hope it's his colleagues on the other side of the House, because that's the kind of activity which used not to happen around here but is happening more and more. I think it's to be....

I'd just like to say that I remember being in opposition in this Legislature when we had a lot of good debates about women in government. I can't remember — if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will point it out — in three and half years of government by the NDP ever having a woman appointed to one very senior position. This government appointed, I believe, the first female assistant deputy minister in Canada — in the Ministry of Health, as it turned out. That was one of the first significant breakthroughs in getting women appointed to high government positions within the civil service. I make no apologies for appointing Mrs. Marie Taylor to act as chairman of the British Columbia Utilities Commission, nor would I make any apologies for appointing her as chairman of the Vancouver General Hospital board — a job which she has carried out in the highest fashion. I would invite the members opposite to find fault with the job which she has performed as chairman of the hospital board. And I would invite the members opposite to find fault with the job she has performed since as chairman of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Mrs. Taylor is one of British Columbia's most prominent businesswomen. She spent 25 years in the business world, reaching a position of high management capability. She is recognized, not only here in British Columbia but also across Canada, as one of the senior businesswomen in this country. She served with distinction as the first president of one of Canada's most prestigious industrial relations organizations. In her short time as chairman of the British Columbia Utilities Commission she has again served with distinction. In the financial circles of New York, in the oil capital of Calgary and among the industries in British Columbia she has received a very deserved reputation as a fine chairwoman and a fine addition to the Utilities Commission process in this country. I would defy the members opposite to canvass the industries which have had direct dealings with the British Columbia Utilities Commission and find one senior person who deals with that commission who doesn't regard Mrs. Taylor's appointment in the highest possible terms. I think it's abhorrent that a member would, for strict political gain, attack a person in this community who has probably contributed more — and continues to do so — than many of us to the community development of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: I would anticipate that kind of reply from that kind of minister. I was here, Mr. Chairman, when he was a member of the opposition. He was described as the assassin of bureaucrats. Not one public servant in this province was safe when that member was sitting across the House.

I was not attacking Marie Taylor. I was attacking that minister for appointing a person who does not have a qualification. He stands up and talks about her qualifications, but he hasn't given us one argument in favour of her qualifications. He says something about people and phone the BCUC; they're delighted with their reception. What's he talking about? The Utilities Commission in this province has yet to be called upon to do one single thing.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Nonsense.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense, he says. Give us one hearing and tell us how much she's being paid.

Let me deal just for a second with our public servants in high places. Let's remember Frances Fleming, Kathleen Ruff and Gene Errington. Where are they today?

MR. HANSON: Fired.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And about time. That's it.

Another thing, those were people directly in the public service. This is a chairperson of a commission. He says: "What's wrong with women?" I say: take that argument back to the days when you persecuted Gene Errington right out of that department. That's right. Kathleen Ruff got out of the province. They are people who are giving a good account of themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest very strongly that my criticisms are valid; otherwise the minister would have come up with an argument that might have made sense.

MR. KEMPF: I hear the members opposite suggesting that I get up and speak. I'm only too happy to do so. I hear the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) this morning talking about Kemano Completion and Kemano II. I'm not sure the member for Skeena is aware of the difference, because he has some of his facts wrong. Outside of that, I've got to agree somewhat with him — just to say that, yes, there is an awful lot of concern in the whole interior of this province, particularly in my constituency of Omineca, in regard to any project, whether it be Kemano II or Kemano completion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There were some members opposite who said that I haven't spoken in public or in this House with regard to the plans of the Aluminum Company of Canada, which, of

[ Page 5543 ]

course, is untrue. I'd just like to reiterate what I said recently in debate on the budget about the Kemano completion project and its effect on the people of my constituency. I quote what I said on March 17 of this year — from Hansard. I've said it many times, members opposite, in my constituency and I will never back off from this stand. I said that I and the people of Omineca "stand united against any project which would result in the devastation of our river systems" — any project which will mean a change in the water patterns of the Nechako River in my constituency. I stand by those words. I've told this House that. I've told my constituents that and I've told the government that. I will continue to do so.

I stand in this debate this morning on behalf of a great number of my constituents who either directly or indirectly rely on the mining industry for their livelihood. Mining is a very important industry in Omineca, where four major mines now exist. Three communities that rely heavily, some almost entirely, on the mining industry for their very existence are Granisle, Fraser Lake and now Houston. These are vibrant, thriving and expanding communities because of a very stable and economically viable mining industry. Fifteen hundred employees and their families are directly reliant on that industry for their jobs and their future. They are families who can look forward to a bright, stable future due to the mining climate produced in this province by this present administration. You laugh, Mr. Member, but we remember. It hasn't always been that way in British Columbia. We in Omineca can remember what happened under an NDP government, and we remember what that government did to the mining industry in Omineca. Not only did they hurt the mining industry; they jeopardized that very industry and hurt an untold number of people — not only people employed in the industry itself, but many other small business people. When the mining industry is in danger — and in danger it was from 1972 to 1975 — you jeopardize the livelihood of more than just the people working directly in the mines.

Let's look at some of the headlines. The members opposite love to get up and base their whole debate on headlines in the newspapers. Let's look at some of those headlines. I have several here. One of April 21, 1973, in the Vancouver Province reads: "B.C. Mining Being Slowly Strangled." It says: "British Columbia's second largest industry, mining, is in danger of being slowly strangled to death because of legislation passed at the recent session of the House." Another headline from the Colonist of October 6, 1973 says: "Mine Growth Slow." It reads:

"The Mining Association of British Columbia reported Friday that the mining industry in B.C. showed a marked decline in expansion in 1972 when compared to 1971 when it had reached a peak. The association's 1972 economic report on the B.C. and Yukon mining industries said: 'New capital inflow in B.C. necessary to expand or develop mines declined to $260.8 million.' That figure is only 56 percent of the 1971 total."

A headline in the Vancouver Sun for December 10, 1973 said "Mine Exploration Decreases in British Columbia," and one on November 18, 1974, said: "Mining Industry Being Destroyed by Government."

When the mining industry is in danger, exploration money dries up, and dry up it did. Did it ever dry up, and everyone was hurt. Grocery stores, hardware stores, motels, hotels, gas stations, car and truck rentals, helicopter companies — everything was hurt. I know, because I was in business during those years in Omineca, and that's one of the reasons I stand here today to tell this story to this chamber. That is why I gave up everything to attempt to ensure that never again in this great province would we see that which was done to the mining industry in 1,200 days of socialism.

I remember the leave-it-in-the-ground philosophy of the NDP in those days. I remember Bob Williams and his "bring them to their knees and take them over" attitude. I remember that, and the Hart Horns, and the Nimsickness that we had in this province that ran like wildfire throughout the province when the socialists were taking the industry out of existence — taking it and taxing it out of existence. I won't forget, and neither will the miners and their families. Ask the miners who moved from Bralorne to Houston, expecting some kind of future in a brand-new mine at Bradina. Many people moved all the way from Bralorne....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members; the member for Omineca has taken his place in debate and is addressing the committee.

MR. KEMPF: Keep those members opposite in order, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and other members would not interrupt.

MR. KEMPF: ...so they can hear the very quiet member for Omineca.

Ask those people from Bralorne who moved to Houston to take their place in a brand new mine at Bradina, only to see it close within two years of its opening. Ask those people what they think of the socialist way in the mining industry. Ask the small business people who rely heavily on mining exploration to make their businesses viable. Ask the small airline companies such as Harrison Airways, who, had it not been for the 1,200 days of the socialist government in British Columbia, would still be in business and providing a daily service into Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, even Dease Lake — the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) isn't here right now — and even on to Whitehorse. That was their plan. They were doing very well, relying very heavily on the mining exploration that was taking place in northern British Columbia for that viability, until by 1974 and 1975 it had all but disappeared.

The people of Omineca won't forget. The miners in Omineca won't forget, nor will their families. Mining is a very important industry, not only to the miners and their families, but to all of the community. It provides a base and foundation on which all of the services to those communities can be built. I personally have a very high regard for the mining industry, because not only have I personally worked in the industry from time to time but my father was a hard-rock miner in this province and country for 35 years. It's an industry that's very close to my heart. If I have any say in it, we will never again in this province see the socialists in a position to do again what they did to that industry in the 1,200 days of their rule in British Columbia. We will never again see Bill 31 and the Yukon development acts — never. The mines were shutting down. Let alone new mines opening, they were shutting down from 1972-1975 in a mining

[ Page 5544 ]

province with more mining potential than all of the rest of this great land put together. Never again.

We have seen what fair and logical mining legislation can do for the industry. The record speaks for itself. I could go on and give the figures, but they're in the record and in history; they're known. The record speaks for itself since 1975. The mines were opening, jobs were being created and exploration was taking place once again. It is just now — five years later — that the mining exploration has returned in Omineca and in the central and northern part of this province to where it was in 1972. It took five years to resurrect that industry that your socialist government killed from 1972 to 1975. Confidence has been restored. The industry is paying its way. The people of British Columbia are seeing a return for their resource. You don't have to tax the industry out of existence. Or was that part of the plan? Was it the socialist plan to bring that industry to its knees and then nationalize it like they would everything else? Was that the plan? I ask the members opposite to get up and respond to that. Was that the scheme?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You were in Quebec, Mr. Member for Skeena, on the dole of the province of British Columbia and living in Quebec at that time. How would you know?

Was that the plan, Mr. Chairman? Was it the plan to nationalize the mining industry of this province, or was it their plan to give it all to Ottawa with the understanding that the Trudeau socialists would do the job for them? Was that what the NDP had in mind when they were bringing the mining industry in the province of British Columbia to its knees in those 1,200 days of socialism? Well, Mr. Chairman, thank God we'll never know, for the people of this province, remembering those 1,200 dark days of socialism, will never again return a socialist government, knowing what they had in mind and were doing to the mining industry from 1972 to 1975.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.