[ Page 5545 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Heritage Conservation Act (Bill M203). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 5545

Oral Questions

Status of Ian Jessiman. Mr. Hall –– 5545

Government aircraft flights to Kamloops. Mr. Passarell –– 5545

Urea formaldehyde in B.C. schools. Mr. Lauk –– 5546

PCBs in B.C. schools. Mr. Lauk –– 5546

Health hazards on school grounds. Mr. Lauk –– 5546

Rent increases for service station lessees. Mr. Lea –– 5546

Additional income for income assistance recipients. Ms. Brown –– 5547

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

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5547

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Brummet

Ministerial Statement

Allegation of Alaskan commitment to railway project.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5569

Mr. Lea –– 5570

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure to introduce in your gallery 20 students from the Carson Elementary School in Quesnel. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Ted Melanson and chaperones Reverend Costerton, Mrs. Shirley Lytle and Nancy Genner. I'd like the members to welcome them here.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the House to welcome two old friends, one of whom is the mayor of Coquitlam and the other a noted alderman in Coquitlam. Please welcome Mayor Jimmy Tonn and Alderman Les Garrison.

MR. RITCHIE: In the precincts today we have two groups of students from Central Fraser Valley. They are from the Alexander Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Nicholas, and from the South Poplar Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Doerksen. Would the House please welcome these students.

MR. HANSON: In the members' gallery today are five young girls from South Park School. They are Rebecca Denby, Lara Riecken, Kristin Scott, Krysta Taylor and Tamara van Elsakker. These girls come each Tuesday to collect all of the newsprint in the parliament buildings and recycle it for future use. I think they set an example for all of us. Let's thank them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I know you'll be pleased to know that in the precincts this afternoon is a class of grade 7 students from Cherryville Elementary School, with their principal Mr. Vern Bryant. Cherryville, as some members may not know, is a thriving metropolis of hunting, fishing and outdoor living about 50 miles from Lumby. They will be joining us in the gallery later this afternoon. I ask members to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to make welcome a group of students from Mt. Klitsa Junior Secondary School in Port Alberni who are touring the buildings today but unfortunately will not be able to get into the gallery. They have with them a group of students from Quebec on an exchange program. I would ask the House to welcome the Mt. Klitsa students and their guests from the province of Quebec.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today, visiting from the great city of Kamloops, is a group of students from North Kamloops Elementary. I would ask the House to please bid them welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming nine students from Klemtu, a small village in my constituency, and their teacher, Dan Robson.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to note a very memorable occasion for one of the members of this House. I would ask all members to join with me in very best wishes on his forty-seventh birthday to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

MR. LAUK: On behalf of the official opposition — we're always here — happy birthday, Jack.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
HERITAGE CONSERVATION ACT

On a motion by Mrs, Wallace, Bill M203, An Act to Amend the Heritage Conservation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

STATUS OF IAN JESSIMAN

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. Yesterday I asked him if, in the case of Mr. Ian Jessiman, we had hired Mr. Jessiman as an assistant deputy or as a consultant. In the Attorney-General's reply he said that Mr. Jessiman is not an assistant deputy minister, and went on to elaborate on that. Even while we were speaking in the House yesterday, the government was distributing directories of ministries. I find in that document, under the Ministry of the Attorney-General, that the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, legal services, is Mr. Ian Jessiman, QC. I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell me who is correct — the Attorney-General or the directory that his ministry has put out.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General is correct, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL: As the point of question period is to make sure of facts and to find out what the facts are, we're slowly but surely getting the answers from the Attorney-General regarding Mr. Jessiman. Mr. Jessiman, Mr. Speaker, is also the president of Jesco Financial Services. Can the minister advise the House if any payments have been made to that company?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't advise if any payments have been made to that company. I'm not equipped with that information today, but I'd be most happy to take the question as notice and bring the information back to the member.

MR. HALL: Further, can the minister confirm that Mr. Jessiman has already received a relocation cheque from the comptroller-general to cover his expenses, despite the minister's claims recently that Mr. Jessiman had not yet moved?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member misinterprets a response to an earlier question. Yes, Mr. Jessiman was paid relocation expenses in accordance with standards which are applied for the transfer of senior officials of government within the province and from outside.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
FLIGHTS TO KAMLOOPS

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Given that three government aircraft flights arrived at Kamloops airport on Saturday, May 9, 1981, will the minister indicate to the House the names of those persons of the Social Credit Party who have been flown into and out of Kamloops on government aircraft during the by-election so far?

[ Page 5546 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Atlin, I can ascertain that, but I'm not aware that three government aircraft went to Kamloops. I'm not surprised; it's a very busy spot for government air services 12 months of the year. Sometime the logs will show up and we can find out what happened.

MR. PASSARELL: Has the minister decided to table the flight logs of the government aircraft for the last month instead of waiting the mandatory 19 months as he usually does?

HON. MR. FRASER: The logs that are required have been tabled in the Legislature, and when they're required again they will be tabled.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE IN B.C. SCHOOLS

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can the minister inform the House as to the number of schools in British Columbia which contain urea formaldehyde in their insulation?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm going to take that question as notice, but will tell the member we have been studying the situation — even prior to the announcements last week — to ascertain that so that I can give him a careful answer on the results. I'll take the question as notice, and thank him.

MR. LAUK: My office, and I'm sure his, has received a number of concerned calls from parents, and also from administrators. I wonder if the minister, in so doing, would take this question as notice. What steps has the minister decided to take to ensure that the use of urea formaldehyde poses no threat to the health of B.C. school children? Would he take that as notice?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes.

PCBs IN B.C. SCHOOLS

MR. LAUK: Can the minister assure the House that there is no electrical equipment containing PCBs in schools in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again I will take that question as notice. That matter, along with the previous one, is under investigation.

MR. LAUK: The phone number is in the book, Mr. Speaker. If you call the federal environmental protection service they advise that there are three school districts with PCBs in their electrical equipment. Has the minister decided to take steps to have them removed at once?

MR. SPEAKER: The original question was taken as notice. The supplementary question is not in order unless the minister wishes to indicate he wants to take that as notice as well.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I will look into that matter, along with the others that the member has raised.

HEALTH HAZARDS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS

MR. LAUK: There was a report that spraying of insecticide in and around a school recently has caused the closure of that school. Has the minister taken steps to prevent further use of the spray which has caused deleterious effects to teachers and students in the schools?

HON. MR. SMITH: Spraying of harmful substances on school grounds, of course, is contrary to school policy, and school boards are generally very careful in that regard. In the instance referred to by the member, there apparently was a substance sprayed which was not known to be harmful, and in fact it was. I consider that to be a serious matter, and I will again take steps to bring to the attention of districts across the province the importance of checking all substances used in spraying in areas where students and members of the public can come into contact with it. School boards are generally very careful about this.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister decided to appoint a ministry committee to review all possibilities and probabilities of health hazards in and around schools throughout the province of British Columbia? Is he going to make that report public?

RENT INCREASES FOR
SERVICE STATION LESSEES

MR. LEA: To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Service station owners who are leasing their service stations have had phenomenal rent increases imposed on them by a number of major oil companies in the last two years. Examples are Esso, 114 percent; Shell, 82.8 percent; Texaco, 79.4 percent; Gulf, 194 percent. The only one that is keeping it within some sort of reasonable limit is PetroCan, with an increase of 16.4 percent. What action has the minister decided to take to roll back some of these excessive rent increases placed on small business communities?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I met with the Automotive Retailers Association to discuss this problem. We're working with them to attempt to find some solutions to their difficulties, not only with regard to the rents at their service stations but also in regard to the guidelines for independent owners of service stations. We will be taking further action shortly. It's my understanding that as of earlier this week a 60-day moratorium was placed on rental increases by the oil companies so that they as well can work with their dealers on some cooperative effort.

MR. LEA: They've closed the barn door after everything has escaped. The minister says he will be taking further action shortly. He's obviously decided what that action is going to be. What will that action be?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said that we're working in cooperation with the Automotive Retailers Association. We'll be developing that action shortly.

MR. LEA: The minister said: "We will be taking action shortly." Obviously the policy has been arrived at. What action will you be taking shortly?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: For those who either don't understand or are hard of hearing, I said that I met with the Automotive Retailers Association. We are continuing to meet with the Automotive Retailers Association to attempt to resolve a decision.

MR. LEA: Can the minister tell me, then, why he stated in the House just a few minutes ago that they'll be taking

[ Page 5547 ]

action shortly? If you don't know what it is, what are you going to do?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The only reason I stated that we would be taking action shortly is because we will be taking action shortly.

ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR
INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. At this time single recipients of social assistance who work can only earn $50 without affecting the amount of assistance they receive, and recipients with dependents can only earn $100. Last July the federal government proposed that the ceiling be increased to $75 a month for single recipients and $150 for families. Can the Minister of Human Resources explain why the provincial government has refused to take advantage of this cost-shared program which would allow social assistance recipients to better themselves and get off welfare?

MR. SPEAKER: By its nature the question suggests a very long answer. Is question period sufficient time for this?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I can give a fairly quick answer. Perhaps I can provide the member with a full explanation later.

I thank the member for the question. As a matter of fact our ministry has been working for perhaps the last 18 months in addressing ourselves to this problem of providing some assistance and an incentive for those who are on income assistance. We have been successful in providing a very good plan called the Individual Opportunity Plan, which does give flexibility within that program to allow and offer assistance to income assistance recipients to have the opportunity to make themselves independent, The member's question has to do with the amount of money that an income assistance recipient can earn and retain and still stay on the income assistance of the province. That has been under review for some time.

I believe our Individual Opportunity Plan offers a much better plan than was produced by a simple policy change by the federal administration. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, prior to the federal government having put forward that suggestion, this government had already had a pilot project in the city of Victoria. The pilot project lasted 18 months. It was found that it was not successful. We feel that the program that we have initiated in British Columbia is far more successful than the one that has been suggested.

However, we are pleased to study the results of the program as it has affected other provinces. Frankly we're not really interested in getting 50-cent dollars; we're interested in getting people on income assistance a better and independent way of life.

In this coming week I will be meeting with all of the ministers of social services from across the country. I intend to see what the experience has been in all of those administrations. I will be monitoring and pursuing it. I'd be pleased to share that information with the member who has asked the question.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)

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

MR. HOWARD: Before the committee rose for lunch, some ideas were presented to the committee relating to Harrison Airways. Some information was provided by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) that Harrison Airways went broke as a result of some activity of the NDP when it was government. That is not in accordance with the facts. I'm putting that in the most polite way that I can, Mr. Chairman.

I had a relationship with Harrison Airways at the time it was seeking to obtain permission from the federal air transport commission. Along with officials from Harrison Airways I attended meetings before that committee in the city of Whitehorse in the Yukon, attempting to advance the interests of Harrison Airways to be able to fly the route of Vancouver-Burns Lake-Dease Lake-Whitehorse and so on. In fact, I flew with Harrison Airways from Burns Lake to Vancouver on one occasion.

The major reason that Harrison Airways was interested in pursuing that route did not have to do with the mining industry, but had to do with the potential that may happen in the northern part of the province of British Columbia as a result of the then-proposed extension of B.C. Rail into Dease Lake. That was the foundation upon which Harrison Airways was seeking to get authorization from the air transport committee to fly there. It is to be noted that sometime in 1976 and 1977, as a result of the Social Credit government's decision, that railway line extension was formally abandoned and torn up. That was the foundation upon which Harrison Airways sought to have that route from Vancouver and those stopping places in the Yukon. It was not the nonsensical proposition put forward by the member for Omineca. I just thought that the record should be made straight.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Because mining is such an important part of my constituency's economy I felt it necessary that I make a few comments during the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

It's rather amusing to hear the last member say that Harrison Airways did not survive because the B.C. Rail Dease Lake extension was shut down. The only justification for that extension in the first place was to service a potentially large mining area up in the Dease Lake part of British Columbia. Of course, when the "New Disaster Party" became government in 1972 and in effect killed the mining industry, there was thereafter no justification or reason to have a railway up there. There weren't about to be any mines in that part of the province in any event.

I'd like to hear the members try to justify to themselves and the other people in British Columbia that they had no adverse affect on the mining industry in British Columbia. I listened with great interest to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) convincing themselves and whoever would listen that they had no adverse affect on the mining industry. I hope they continue to say that, because that will ensure the re-election of all of us who are MLAs for areas in which mining is a major part of the economy.

In my own constituency in the town of Princeton, I have the Newmont mine, which employs a large number of my

[ Page 5548 ]

constituents. In the last few years it's been investing about $30 million to take its mining operations across the Similkameen River. It is something that they should have been doing during the period of the NDP government in British Columbia. They did not do it, because they knew that there was no way that they could recover the very expensive cost factor in further developing the old Copper Mountain ore body.

The Craigmont mine is in Merritt. It is another very important part of the economy of my constituency. I fared fairly well in Merritt during the last two elections because of the fear of the return of NDP mining policies. There is the Highland Valley, where the Premier, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and I spent last weekend looking at the tremendous capital investment taking place there which supports the communities of Logan Lake, Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Merritt and, to a considerable extent, Kamloops as well. Massive investment is taking place there, not as a result of NDP policy but as a result of the climate that has been created for that type of investment since that time. Bethlehem, Lornex, Highmont and Dekalb mines are all very massive undertakings requiring a great deal of capital, which will be repaid as long as we maintain a mining climate in British Columbia.

I beg those people to carry on and try to convince themselves, if no one else, that they did not have an adverse effect on mining in B.C. They will draw out statistics showing that the value of mineral products fluctuates in British Columbia, and indeed it does. The value of production from mines in British Columbia will always fluctuate. Yes, indeed, there will always be mines closing, because when the ore is gone mines close. A simple fact they refuse to accept is that they were responsible, through their ill-advised legislation, of turning hundreds of millions of tonnes of ore in British Columbia into waste. They don't have a basic understanding of what ore is. They think it's just mineralized rock. But ore, as we know, is defined as that which can be profitably extracted. When they imposed their royalties and their super royalties upon the mining industry, they added that extra cost to the cost of producing metals and they turned ore into waste. Mines shut down. All of them would have shut down eventually, but the closings and the reduction of operations in the mines that closed at that time were hastened because of the fact that ore was turned into waste. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources spoke of some of these. I will repeat them because we all should remember.

The Granduc mine was only half shut down; the rest of it closed down, indeed, after we became government. The reason the Granduc mine closed down was that when the NDP came in they had spent massive amounts of dollars to develop the ore-body at Granduc and they proceeded to mine it, but when the mining royalty legislation of that party came into effect that company immediately ceased the development of additional ore which would have assured that that mine could go ahead into the future. They stopped developing ore. They stopped assuring the jobs of the many hundreds of miners who were ultimately laid off as a direct result of that party's mining policies.

Britannia mine, Giant Mascot mine, Bradina mine and Jordan River mine closed down before they had to. Many mines in British Columbia closed down before they had to. All of these mines would have closed eventually, as all mines will when the ore deposit is depleted. But the simple fact they refused to recognize is that mining exploration and development also close down. What renews and replenishes the ore reserves in this province is the exploration for and development of mining properties by prospectors, diamond-drillers and miners. The cessation of that created the greatest problem for the mining industry in British Columbia.

This morning the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) referred to a mining company in Kamloops. As the members know, I was employed by the Ministry of Mines during that period of time. My office was in the same building as a fellow by the name of Al Ablett, who was the owner, manager and operator of Amex Exploration Services Ltd. During that period of time the staff in my government office went from four people to 13 people as the workload disappeared. Al Ablett's employees went from 42 people to two people — him and his wife. The people he employed no longer had any productive work to do because the government was making sure that the mining industry would not be around. They were making sure that they could bring this tremendously vital industry to its knees so that they could eventually take it over without having to pay for it.

Mining activity in British Columbia is not measured in terms of dollars of products produced, because the price of these products fluctuates year by year. It's determined by the number of people employed and the amount of activity in that industry. As the Minister of Forests, if I did not carry out my responsibility for the renewal of the forest resource, I would be seriously and justifiably criticized. If I were to say, "We'll remove the trees but we won't do anything to make sure that we have a forest resource for the future," I would have no justification for being in the the position I'm in. However, the NDP government of 1972-75 made sure that absolutely nothing was done to replenish the resource that was being used up year by year during that period of time. The renewal and replenishment of the ore deposits of British Columbia can only be carried out through exploration, development and expansion of mining technology which, in fact, creates new ore. Now that silly little member for Victoria says.... What he doesn't realize is the fact that ore is created through technology, exploration, development and effort — through the application of all of these things. It is not something that is there, period. It is created through the application of effort, technology and capital. That's what creates ore, my friend. Mr. Chairman, I would only hope that this group opposite continue to tell the world how they did not have an adverse effect on mining in British Columbia, because that will assure once again my re-election. Assuring the re-election of myself and this government will assure that we have a vital and viable mining industry in this province for many, many years to come.

Mining began in British Columbia before the turn of the century. In fact, it was one of the major things that caused the development of the province of British Columbia and the economy of this province. At the time that party came into office, there were more ore reserves in British Columbia than there had ever been, even after over 70 years of mining. But with the stroke of a pen, when mineral royalties and the super royalty legislation was brought in, all of a sudden, through the action of a government, hundreds of millions of tonnes of valuable ore became waste rock, and were of no benefit to anyone in British Columbia.

In 1972 the leader of the government — the Premier at that time — Mr. Barrett, said: "Unless we can get a better deal for what we are doing, we will leave the ore in the ground, and I mean it." And that's exactly what he did: he left the ore in the ground. He turned the ore to waste and he

[ Page 5549 ]

cancelled those many hundreds of jobs that were provided for the people of British Columbia — the opportunities to grow with the province and to acquire something for themselves. He left the jobs, the opportunities and the employment in the ground. He was quite proud of that and he hired some real experts to help him — a fellow by the name of Hart Horn, who had more expertise.... When Leo left, we said, "Don't worry, Leo, take Hart," and he did.

This morning members opposite were talking about the qualifications of Marie Taylor to chair the B.C. Utilities Commission. She's a lady who has demonstrated year after year that she is a good administrator and a bright person who is doing an excellent job. They say somehow that's wrong, and yet they brought in Hart Horn — from where I don't know — to be an assistant deputy minister of mines eventually. I remember talking to Hart Horn one day. because I was employed by the Department of Mines at the time, and he said: "Tom, I don't know anything about mining, but you give me six months and I'll know everything there is to know." Six months' time for Hart Horn. Well, when Leo left, he took Hart, and thank God for that.

Mr. Chairman, please ask the members opposite to keep telling the people of British Columbia and Canada how they had no adverse effect on mining. Tell them time and time again, because that's the only way we'll assure the people of British Columbia that we will have a mining industry in the future. Obviously they had no bad effects, in spite of the fact that copper prices during 1974 went to a level that they have never been to since. We had mines closing in British Columbia; we had no exploration activity and no prospecting in British Columbia, and we had very few mineral claims being staked. Once again, it's the exploration, the prospecting and the development of mines that assures our industry.

I think the minister has gone through some of the numbers of claims recorded in British Columbia: in 1975 it was at an all-time low in recent history — about 11,700 claims; last year, after confidence had been restored to that industry, the mineral claims staked were over 72,000. Most of those will not be developed into ore bodies, but some of them will. The more claims you stake, the more activity you have: the more prospectors, drillers, geologists, engineers and miners working in British Columbia; the more chance of renewing that industry and of replacing and replenishing the ore that it needs to survive.

I must congratulate the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on continuing the practices of this government in encouraging that industry, because I don't plan on being in government forever, and when I get back to the private sector, I would like a mining industry to be there for me to work in. The policies that this minister promotes are the policies that we need to assure an industry. The members are making great sport, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that I was not employed by the mining industry during their term of office. I'll tell you why: there was no mining industry to be employed in during that period of time.

I've been involved all my life in mining in British Columbia, as has my father in British Columbia since 1925. We have contributed to the mining industry in this province, and I for one want to have the opportunity of doing it again. As long as we can maintain the policies of this government I shall.

MR. SKELLY: The minister presented us with a bit of a tough decision. He said that if we went on to say that mining wasn't adversely affected by our policies then we'd guarantee his election as the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) in years to come. With that choice in mind I'm prepared to say we did a bad job in mining if we could get rid of that member for Yale-Lillooet and the one for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). It's a tempting suggestion.

The minister talks about how poorly mining did under the years of NDP government between 1972 and 1975, and I think we had the member for Omineca reading newspaper articles from the period 1973-1974. Those articles sounded strangely familiar to me, so I went up to the microfilms upstairs and went back to the early years of the Social Credit government.... You'll remember that when the minister and I had a bit of debate across the floor on Thursday he said: "Well, yes, maybe the mining industry did do all right in terms of the amount of money that came into the province and the dollar-value of production of minerals in the province. Maybe they did all right during your term of office, but you just didn't understand the people in the mining industry — you just didn't have that basic understanding of the mining industry."

MR. LEA: Like the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

MR. SKELLY: Like the member for Langley did.

Let me read a more dated newspaper article. It's headlined "New Act Horrifies B.C. Miners." Maybe the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) will remember this, although maybe it was a year or so before his time.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, read out of 1200 Days.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, you don't want to hear about the Social Credit term of office and what happened to the mining industry and what a plunge they took under legislation that was presented during the Social Credit term of office. That's what the member for Cariboo is attempting to say. But let me read it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. FRASER: Don't stir the waters up.

MR. SKELLY: "My mind's made up," he says, "don't concern me with facts." But let me concern him with a few facts.

HON. MR. FRASER: Where's Leo? I want Leo back.

MR. SKELLY: He may be back as the MLA for Cariboo if you don't watch out.

Here's the story, under the headline "New Act Horrifies B.C. Miners."

"B.C.'s mining industry has been thrown into a turmoil by proposed new mining legislation which it claimed will probably close down operating mines, drive needed capital away from B.C. and leave the industry at the mercy of government civil servants." Doesn't that sound familiar?

"The industry is today bombarding the Premier with telegrams and letters, but it is a foregone conclusion that the government will push through the bills before the Legislature prorogues this week. One mining industry representative described the industry as 'horrified' by this legislation. The industry feels it has been deceived..."

[ Page 5550 ]

Deceived by people who understand the mining industry and understand the people involved in the mining industry?

"...since they had expected the opportunity to study the new legislation before it was approved in the Legislature."

The Social Credit government took those bills, rammed them through the Legislature within weeks, and the industry didn't even have an opportunity to study them.

"Copies of the bill were received only three days ago, and the legislation seems certain to be passed within a day or two."

Five-day railroad mining legislation, and the mining industry didn't even have an opportunity to comment on it. That's from the people who understand the mining industry and understand the people in the mining industry.

"The industry's alarm erupted today with a statement by a special industry committee, a letter to the Premier by a mining engineer, and a telegram to him from a prospector. The opinion of the mine operator as to when or how mineral deposits should be put into production may differ entirely from that of a civil servant who would have the final word and yet whose knowledge of the economics of the case may not be any greater, or even less, than that of the operator."

Probably that's referring to a civil servant like the gentleman who is now Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and has now just left the room.

"Risk capital to develop mineral resources would disappear unless mines are given some security of tenure regarding mineral claims, said the committee."

The Premier referred to in this article is Premier W.A.C. Bennett. The government referred to in this article is the Social Credit government. The bills referred to in this article are Bills 87 and 91 before the Legislature in March 1957 — under a Social Credit government. And the industries said they were going to be killed, driven out of the province, and mines were going to be closed down.

In fact, here is another headline from the Colonist: "Three Mining Firms Cutting B.C. Activities" — Vancouver, CP, the usual source of legislative news in the Colonist.

The Sun says that three major Canadian mining companies are cutting exploration activities in B.C. this year by more than $250,000, chiefly because of unfavourable B.C. mining legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose legislation, Bob?

MR. SKELLY: Social Credit. W.A.C. Bennett. Ken Kiernan was the minister of the day, now the mayor of Chilliwack, and now he's mining land out of the agricultural reserve.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Frobisher Exploration Ltd., Continental Exploration, and, of all people, Noranda Exploration.... "Noranda last year spent more than $425,000 in B.C. mining activities."

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the member for Alberni has stated that Mr. Kiernan is the mayor of Chilliwack. This is not so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must advise you that that is not a point of order. Committee does afford every member the right to debate the vote before us, and issues which come out of the debate.

MR. SKELLY: I should have said he is the former mayor of Chilliwack, and I apologize for that slight error — although I'm pleased to see that the member for Central Fraser Valley didn't doubt the statistics that appeared in the newspapers during the Social Credit government's term of office. Here's another one, Mr. Chairman. This one's dated November 2, 1957, and it's by the business columnist for the Vancouver Sun, Mr. Bill Fletcher, with an outstanding picture of Mines Minister Kiernan. "More Lumps For Miners" is the headline. "Just over a week ago I made the prediction that the Social Credit government wouldn't be foolish enough to slap a tax on the export of iron ore from B.C. I was wrong. Premier Bennett apparently doesn't think he's done enough already this year to ruin the mining industry." Did I get that right? The copy is a little difficult here. Does it say Premier Bennett? It says: "Premier Bennett apparently doesn't think he's done enough already this year to ruin the mining industry." Saturday, November 2, 1957, five years into the first Social Credit government, and already they're demonstrating heir understanding of the mining industry and their feelings for people in the mining industry.

What about this headline, Mr. Chairman? "Sick Industry Needs Cure." Twenty-nine producing B.C. mines closed down in six years, the first six years of the Social Credit government.

"During the last six years, 29 producing mines have closed down in British Columbia. This year alone, mines that have taken the long count represent almost a third of total tonnage treated in 1956. Of those that remain, only 14 were sufficiently profitable to be able to declare a dividend to the end of 1956. Employment in British Columbia's mining industry has dropped in six years from 7,480 men to 5,100 today."

That's a drop in employment by those people who understood he mining industry, and who claim to understand those who work in the mining industry — when they were in the process of putting 2,000 or more of them out of jobs in six years.

Dividends declined over ten years of the Social Credit government. Claim-staking. We hear that claims dropped dramatically in British Columbia, and all those miners were taking off and staking their claims in the Yukon. I'd like to read an article from the Victoria Daily Times for Friday, May 1957, but maybe just the headlines will do: "Canadians going North: New B.C. Mining Law Seen Aiding Alaska." We kept ours in the country; you sent them all off to Alaska.

"The slump is also reflected in the number of mining claims staked by prospectors. In the first three months of this year there were 3,008 compared with 7,836 in the same period last year. The drop was most noticeable in the month of March, when only 950 claims were staked compared with 3,387 in March last year. A record number of 26,252 claims were staked in the province during 1956, and it doesn't appear that figure will even be approached this year."

This was under the government of the people who really understood the mining industry and who claimed to understand the needs of those involved — the prospectors who were moving to Alaska and who weren't staking claims in

[ Page 5551 ]

British Columbia, because the Social Credit government's legislation was driving them to the wall and cutting them off at the knees. That's the government we're talking about here. Isn't it strange how the mining companies react to this type of legislation in the same way, regardless of which government is in office.

The member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who wasn't in office at the time, was probably writing furiously to the Premier from the back of his truck, saying: "Look, we can't continue this. If this continues to happen, everybody in my riding is going to be out of work. You guys are destroying the mining industry in this province. You're cutting them off at the knees. It's not likely that I'll be the candidate for Cariboo in a few years, so change your policy." He was probably doing that.

HON. MR. FRASER: You'd better quit while you're behind.

MR. SKELLY: You don't like listening to this stuff.

In the Vancouver Sun on October 16, 1958, under the Social Credit government — the government that understood mining and those who worked in the mining industry — the headline reads: "Mineral Output in B.C. Dips Sharply." "Mineral production in British Columbia during 1957 was valued at $172,264,617, a drop of nearly $18 million from the record 1956 production of $190 million." That's almost a 10 percent reduction.

HON. MR. FRASER: Even Chris isn't even listening to you. Why don't you sit down?

MR. SKELLY: I'm reading his clippings. He doesn't have anything else to do.

What I am trying to point out is that whenever legislation comes down in the province of British Columbia which restricts the activities of mining companies, imposes increased tax on the mining companies.... As the government said in their budget speeches, sometimes we have to pay increased taxes; sometimes we all have to tighten our belts. When that applies to the mining industry, they react the same way as the rest of us. They don't like tightening their belts. They don't like packing home a smaller paycheque than they had before. They're exactly the same as every other human being in the province of British Columbia when you impose an additional tax on them. So they respond in this way: they say the additional tax is going to kill the mining industry. As I said this morning, this is one industry that's been killed and resurrected so many times we're going to start a new religion based on it. It's ridiculous. We'll call it the mineral majority.

I think we're going to have to take a lot of what these people say with a grain of salt. You can't knock them for saying that they're going to suffer, and you can't knock them for exaggerating the amount of suffering that they're going to do. Every taxpayer does that when he feels the pinch, and legitimately he should. Whether it's an individual or a property-owner who is feeling the pinch today under Social Credit or the mining companies who were feeling the pinch under Social Credit back in 1957 and 1958, it's legitimate that they're going to scream and say that they're going to be done out of business. The government has to look at this with a bit of a jaundiced eye. They've cried wolf any number of times — in 1958, 1971 and 1973.

HON. MR. FRASER: Read 1200 Days.

MR. SKELLY: Did you get somebody to read it to you? Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is that you have to look at it with a pretty cautious and critical eye. As far as I'm concerned, the Socreds seem to have bought the mining industry line hook, line and sinker, whether true or not. Fortunately back in 1957 and 1958 they didn't buy it; the mining industry and the government were able to work out their differences and a lot of those problems were resolved — as we were in the process of doing. Afton mines and the Teck Corp. were a clear example of the working out of that system. How many new smelters were there under Social Credit?

In any case, let's go back to Marie Taylor. Maybe I don't agree with my own party members on Marie Taylor. If what the minister says is true — if she is an independent worker, if she is intelligent. If she has respect in the business field and has worked her way up to the presidential level — then obviously we're looking at a fairly capable person. If we are, then why did you put her in a position where she is totally dependent on decisions of your ministry and the cabinet? If as chairman of the B.C. Utilities Commission Marie Taylor is capable of making independent decisions, why does she have to report back to you, who can reject, accept, modify or throw out her decisions altogether? If she's such a qualified, independent, capable person, why not give her the decision-making authority? What we were looking for in this province was an independent commission to adjudicate B.C. Hydro's rate increases, to analyze new project development, and to look at utilities throughout the province and make decisions with respect to energy. What did we get? We got one that's totally dependent on what goes on behind the closed door of cabinet. We're totally dependent on the minister's whim.

We've got nothing new in the province of British Columbia. If Marie Taylor were given authority as an independent chairman of the B.C. Utilities Commission, we would have accepted it and supported it. We would have voted for it, because that's the kind of thing we were looking for. That's the kind of thing every citizen of this province was looking for. For once this government was willing to trust an independent agency, as you did. We congratulated you and we supported you when you set up the auditor-general, for example. You appointed those people through an all-party committee of the Legislature. That's the way to go. You appointed an ombudsman — I guess you're not too happy about that now. That's the role of the ombudsman. If the government changes, we'll probably not be too happy with what he says about us. But that's the role of the ombudsman. At least you created that position through an all-party committee of cabinet, and you gave him the independence to do his job. We voted for that. We congratulated you for that, and we continue to do so. But in this case you say you took a perfectly capable person who is an independent worker and respected in the community, and then you cut her off at the knees. You won't let her make a decision; every decision has to be made on in cabinet or at the whim of the minister. That's not the way I view the proper employment of an expert, independent and capable person.

I wanted to take this opportunity to set the facts right and to put them in a greater historical perspective. Let's look over the whole term of Social Credit governments in this province, and let's look over the whole term of the NDP governments in this province. Let's see who claims to really understand the mining industry and who claims to really understand the

[ Page 5552 ]

people who operate within the mining industry. I think we've both made mistakes; we realize it; I hope they realize it. Adjustments were made, and adjustments will continue to be made. I notice that there's one thing the mining industry has learned over the years: now they're not using the same old clichés that every new tax is going to destroy the industry and drive us to Alaska and the Yukon. Now they're willing to sit down and discuss the problems and work out an acceptable solution to the problems on both sides, regardless of which government is in power. A lot of people have matured in the province of British Columbia over the last decade or two — the mining industry, the opposition and, I hope, this government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I want to make a couple of comments about the British Columbia Utilities Commission. Obviously that member hasn't read the legislation.

MR. SKELLY: I've read it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You misunderstood it then. If that member read the legislation, first of all he would know that the British Columbia Utilities Commission — no one person, but the commission itself — is completely independent in its regulatory role over rate applications for B.C. Hydro, West Kootenay Power and Light, Inland Natural Gas or Pacific Northern Gas. There is no interference by government in the regulatory role of the British Columbia Utilities Commission. It's the first time in the history of this province that the British Columbia Utilities Commission has had the responsibility for regulating B.C. Hydro's rates. It's something that the public of British Columbia have been asking for for years, and now finally have. It is a completely independent regulatory function of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Secondly, the B.C. Utilities Commission has been given a new function in this province — one which I believe will serve the citizens of this province well in the future — as an adviser to government in reviewing major energy projects. I guess that comes down to where this side of the House disagrees with the members opposite. The members opposite have a philosophy that you set up some outside body to make government policy and then the elected legislators can sit back, never get into any trouble and never make any decisions while the province goes down the tube and somebody else out there who isn't responsible to. anyone, particularly not the electorate, makes all the policy decisions. We don't agree with that way of doing government. We believe that because we're elected, we have a responsibility to the public both to make decisions and to take actions. We'll continue to govern in that way.

I wish that there was one way that the members opposite could understand that the mining industry only flourishes when the mining industry has the opportunity to explore and develop. The member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland), the Minister of Forests, has spent his life in the mining industry. I thought he put quite clearly to the members opposite how mines get developed and found. If they don't get found, there is no ore and there is no mining industry.

I'm sure that other governments have made bad decisions with regard to the mining industry — decisions which have caused a serious decline in the opportunities for exploration to take place. If that member tells me that that's what happened in 1953 and 1957, then I accept that that's probably correct. All that member does is reinforce the argument that I've made in this House that government policy can and does directly affect mining, sometimes in very detrimental ways. He asks if the things he was reading don't sound familiar. Yes, they do sound familiar. The problem is that it doesn't really mater what the taxation is in either of those scenarios — the time when the NDP was in power and the time when, I'm told by the member, there was some restrictive legislation brought in which caused a decline in exploration. It doesn't really matter what the revenues are from the mines. What matters is that the exploration doesn't get done. If the exploration doesn't get done it takes years and years to recover from that lack of activity. For the first time — at least that I've heard — that member has admitted more clearly than ever that his government drove the mining industry out of this province. He said: "We at least kept ours in this country." That's a small comfort for those people who were out of work when your party was in power. That's no comfort and it's not very funny.

I was going to resist the temptation to read from another old newspaper article, but I can't resist it any longer, because that member has introduced into the debate some comment from newspaper articles of the past. I'd like to just very briefly do the same thing. I don't suppose the message has to get out to anybody who knows. The message doesn't have to get out to the fellow that the Minister of Forests mentioned, Mr. Ablett from Kamloops, who would have lost his business except for the tenacity of he and his wife, who mortgaged everything they had to keep going because they knew darn well that the NDP would be out soon. They did. They were out. Now Mr. Ablett has a prosperous and flourishing business again in Kamloops, thanks to some progressive policies that allow him to do that.

I just want to read a couple of sentences from an open letter to Hon. Leo T. Nimsick which was published in the Vancouver Sun on April 29, 1975. It was written by a fellow named Malcolm Lorimer, a mining engineer in the province who was unfortunately unemployed because of the policies of the former government. Unfortunately he didn't want to go to the Yukon. He loved British Columbia, and he wanted to stay here. So he stayed here and fought the policies of that government, and fortunately he helped to win — he and some of the 4,000 people who stood on the front lawns of this Legislature to protest the disastrous mining policies of that government. It was a very orderly protest, I might add. They fought and won. They remember, and they'll never forget.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of the items mentioned by Mr. Lorimer in his rather lengthy letter to Mr. Nimsick are interesting. He goes on to point out that as a result of a lot of teamwork between governments and the industry and others over about a decade of time, the mining industry had reached a point where it was really flourishing in this province and about to take off. He points out that the situation changed very quickly until it was at the point where staking and exploration had approached a standstill. In fact it did pretty well come to a standstill. He confirms the kinds of stories about Mr. Ablett and his company by saying that many firms have closed or are operating on skeleton staffs, hoping for better days. Some of them stayed around and fought and mortgaged their homes and won. They won't forget. He points out that geophysical firms moved away, assayers were out of work and suppliers of goods and services throughout the province were suffering. Investor confidence was so badly shaken that it was virtually impossible to raise capital.

[ Page 5553 ]

Mr. Lorimer goes on to talk about prices a little bit. The members opposite have been very forceful in saying that the problem with the mining industry was just a matter of prices. In one sentence here Mr. Lorimer says: "If you'd look at your own report for the year 1972, the year you assumed office" — "you" meaning Mr. Nimsick — "you would see that the average copper price for that year was around 45 cents a pound. Now it's 60 cents."

That's not a decline in prices, Mr. Chairman. Gold, silver and zinc have shown phenomenal increases, and lead and molybdenum have never been higher. There was no decline in prices, Mr. Chairman. Somebody mentioned it was the federal government's taxation policy of not disallowing a tax on royalties that was the big problem. Mr. Lorimer, who incidentally has a brother in this House, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, talks about the royalties. "Well," said Mr. Lorimer, "if the NDP hadn't imposed its royalty in Bill 31 in the first place, the federal government wouldn't have been a problem." So how do you figure that one out?

Mr. Chairman, he talks about gold mining, which should have been at its highest level ever, and yet there wasn't one mine operating in that three-year period in this province. The price of gold had gone up from $20 — well, I'm not sure what it was, but it was going up rapidly.

AN HON. MEMBER: It started at $35.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it started at $35 sometime, sure. It started at a lot less than that a lot of years before that. What do you mean, it started at $35?

I do want to bring a couple of other figures to you to try to really put forward the thought that without exploration you don't have mining. I want to show you what's happened since 1975, because I don't want to dwell on the past anymore. I really like the way Mr. Lorimer closes his letter. He said:

"In looking back over the last two and a half years, you cannot possibly be proud of your performance. Presiding over the decline of a once flourishing industry must be a humbling experience. You must also be somewhat disillusioned over the turn of events since the day about a year ago when you were discussing Bill 31 on the Chuck Davis radio show, and said: 'Once it's on the statutes, I think the industry will relax back and enjoy what we have done.' The only way I can reply to that in my own impeccable English is: 'It ain't so.' "

Well, that's the way the industry feels today. They won't relax and forget and accept your apologies for bringing in Bill 31, as that member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has done in this House. They won't accept the Leader of the Opposition's apologies and his promise never to do it again, because they know very well that if you get the chance, you'll do it again in spades.

What's happened since 1975 reflects the understanding that exploration must go first, before you can develop mines in this province. The miners in the mining industry, the suppliers and the workers — those workers whose lunch buckets were empty — won't forget those years. Exploration expenditure in this province has gone from $26 million in 1975 to $108 million last year — an increase of 315 percent.

That's what happens when the guys go out and tramp around the hills and find mines. Claims recorded were 11,751 in 1975, and last year they were over 72,000 — an increase of 516 percent. That's what happens when you have a government which brings some confidence to the marketplace and to the industry and allows the industry, with a minimum of interference, to get on with the job and help us make a prosperous British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: The minister advises that claims staked went up 516 percent. That figure seems remarkably familiar too — readings from the past. It's something like the average increase per ministry of the advertising budget to be spent by Social Credit this year, which is up 520 percent to $25 million.

Let's talk for a moment, if we may, about the record. Let's examine as well what our colleague for Alberni has pointed out on successive occasions. He's demonstrated clearly that the value to the revenue, to the people and to the government of British Columbia of moneys derived from mining improved magnificently during the New Democrat administration. That's been demonstrated again and again. The values earned by the people of British Columbia on their assets and their resources — the mineral resource of British Columbia — improved fantastically during the period of New Democrat administration. He's also read into the record the complaints from the mining industry during the first Social Credit administration, of how the Socreds ruined that industry in this province.

I suppose there's one thing to be said about the inevitable fights between the prepared statistics of competing political parties in British Columbia. I suppose there are those who will deny the reports made in Public Accounts in the period 1972-75 of the vastly increased revenues earned under the first New Democrat administration. The minister himself hasn't denied it, but members of your party have again and again in public.

MR. KEMPF: You were taxing them to death.

MR. BARBER: If we were taxing them to death, how on earth could they pay so much money and be so prosperous?

I'm glad that the minister himself has now agreed that Public Accounts for the province of British Columbia for the years 1972-75 were perfectly accurate and that it is perfectly accurate to claim that the mining industry of British Columbia made enormous profits and contributed much of that profit — as it should, as should every industry — to all of the people of British Columbia, who own the fundamental resource in the first place.

There are two issues here. It's not just the relative accuracy of the financial information and revenue figures offered by Social Credit and by the NDP in regard to the mining industry. I guess those things will always be debated. There's also the issue not of accuracy but of irony. We hear from a government that claims to be businesslike that they know what they're doing and should be trusted to continue doing it in the mining industry. It's the issue of irony and absurdity that also has to be drawn to the committee's attention. It's a bit much, by way of brief comparison, to have any government, much less this government, accuse the first New Democrat administration of being unbusinesslike. After all, it was Social Credit that accidentally dumped Seaboard Life Insurance Co. — by mistake — and then had to call an emergency session of the Legislature to clear it up. Who is this minister — and who is the party he represents — to tell anyone that they are not businesslike either in the mining field, as he's done repeatedly, or in any other? It wasn't the NDP that

[ Page 5554 ]

accidentally killed Seaboard Life Insurance; it was Social Credit. It was a stupid, ridiculous and expensive bungle by Social Credit. He has a nerve! And we have to suffer the irony of them telling us that we weren't businesslike? Look at the record of Social Credit compared with that of the NDP and you'll learn who was truly businesslike in this province. It was the NDP by a long shot. We never accidentally killed a life insurance company.

Once again, dealing with the issue of irony in the minister's comments and his claim that somehow his administration was and is more businesslike in the field of mining, it wasn't our administration that wrecked the Princess Marguerite and cost the taxpayers $20 million to repair it. It wasn't our administration that wrecked the mining industry either. You're the ones who wasted $20 million on the jetfoil, the Victoria Princess, and the conversion of the Marguerite and the Surrey. Now you tell us that you're businesslike enough to run a mining industry in this province too. Let me give compansons.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we've allowed a great amount of latitude in this debate since the vote has come before us, but we really must comment on and be relevant to the vote before us: the administrative actions of the minister.

MR. BARBER: That's right, and one of them is to make the claim repeatedly, no matter how unreliable it may be, that Social Credit is to be believed as being more businesslike than the NDP, when the record is perfectly clear that the facts command the other conclusion.

I'll be brief making these comparisons, and then I have a number of questions for the minister. But I wish to finish the comparisons for the sake of the record.

It wasn't the NDP that concocted a Vancouver convention centre and saw its first estimate come in at $25 million, go to $52 million and now it's $90 million. It's the incompetence of Social Credit as represented by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I really believe this member is challenging your authority. You've just warned him to stay within the mining estimates, and he goes merrily along the way he wants. As a member of this House I resent it, and I would like you to see that he obeys the rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me cite standing order 61 (2), which states that all debate in Committee of Supply and in the House must be relevant to the vote before us. I am sure the member is capable of doing that. We are discussing vote 65, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. BARBER: I'm debating in particular the ability of this committee to take the minister seriously when he tells us that Social Credit knows how to run the business of the people of British Columbia in the mining industry. What I'm doing, and I only have one more illustration — I'm sure it won't embarrass the minister as the Princess Marguerite issue embarrassed him, properly, for two years — is pointing out the grotesque incompetence of Social Credit. I won't refer to medicare and the way they're mishandling that. I won't refer to this year's budget. I won't even refer to the secret police. I'll refer, if I may, to the fact that Social Credit is no longer credible to the people of British Columbia when they pretend that they know how to run a business. The people of British Columbia now understand that Social Credit, in the mining industry and every other industry which it affects and touches, can no longer be trusted to be even half competent, half serious or half able. Further proof of that leads me to the subject of the questions I have for the minister.

If Social Credit knew what it was doing it wouldn't have to hire Hollywood fixers to polish its image. If this minister's policies in the field of energy were self-evidently worthwhile, he wouldn't have to hire Hollywood fixers to manufacture TV films and run them on BCTV. It can also be pointed out that if Social Credit was a competent administration that commanded public respect it wouldn't need to buy media time to get its story across. If the minister's policies commanded the weight and respect of public attention, why would he need to hire Hollywood fixers to get the message across? The people of British Columbia are rational and intelligent, perfectly well educated and perfectly able to decide for themselves on the basis of the facts presented to them in the usual, traditional and ordinarily adequate ways.

What does this minister do? In his desperation to sell a policy that can't be sold on its own merits he hires Hollywood fixers to follow him around British Columbia to make films of his smiling face explaining the inexplicable and defending the indefensible. If this minister's policies had any rationale, rational people would find their success and their value self-evident. The point is that this government is wasting $25 million this year, including the share in this minister's estimates, to try to explain to the people of British Columbia why their policies should be supported. Apparently they can't do that in this House, and apparently they don't trust the media to do it independently and neutrally. It would seem they don't even trust their own political party to do it either. Instead we see a government in desperation hiring Dougie Glitter to work out of the Premier's office, who in turn hires Hollywood fixers to do, among other things, some kind of sell job on this minister's energy policies.

Did you watch the TV show last week, Mr. Chairman? Nod your head if you did. Mr. Chairman does not nod his head; I guess he didn't. Is there any member on the government side, apart from the minister himself, who watched last week's TV special trying to explain and defend this government's incompetent energy policies? Would you nod your heads. Let the record show that no one is nodding his head. Did the minister watch his own show, or did he get it on sneak preview?

I think it should be pointed out that this minister hired a consulting agency, Goldfarb, and has wasted $8,000 on their services. One of the representatives of that firm commissioned to find out whether or not the show explained away the Social Credit energy policies said: "We thought we might have a difficult time finding anyone who watched the show." That's really ridiculous. It is ridiculous that we have a government so inept and incompetent that it has to try to buy public opinion or to buy television time, which it can't earn on its own merits, to explain away their inept energy policies. It's ridiculous and offensive that we have a government in British Columbia that is so weak, so incompetent and so out of touch with public opinion that they have to hire Hollywood fixers to try to repair the job. Who did the hiring? Among others, the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Did anyone in the public galleries watch the special show? Would you nod your heads. Is there anyone up there who did? Someone is nodding no, she didn't; another gentle-

[ Page 5555 ]

man is nodding no, he didn't; a third gentleman is nodding no. Did anyone watch this ridiculous television show?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could you please address the Chair and the committee.

MR. BARBER: And the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, which we do through this Legislature as well as we're able.

It's perfectly obvious why Goldfarb admitted that they were going to have trouble finding anyone to watch this ridiculous TV show. It is ridiculous because of the simple fact that Social Credit desperation to sell the unsaleable is ridiculous. If your policies in energy were any good, people would support them on their own merits; if your policies made any sense, the people would see the sense in them and not have to be bought by Hollywood fixers. If the people were presented with a fair and legitimate argument in favour of your energy policies, you wouldn't have to waste $25 million trying to flog them.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that this minister is wasting at least $150,000 on his TV special — courtesy of the Hollywood fixers — and to do what? To run a show that no one watched. To do what? To run the show against the NHL Stanley Cup play-offs, for heaven's sakes.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not very smart.

MR. BARBER: Yes, really smart. Of course no one watched it. It's unwatchable in the first place and had heavy competition in the second, but that's typical Socred planning, Mr. Chairman.

Can I point out the obvious again? It seems obvious to me that if your policies were any good, the people would support them; if they were rational, rational people would endorse them; if they made any sense at all, sensible people would see the merit of them, and then they would sell, they would pass, and it wouldn't cost you a nickel. It wouldn't cost you a nickel because the intellectual, theoretical and the practical advantages of a good policy would be self-evident to the people of B.C. The point is that your policies aren't any good, and the people reject them. The point is that your policies are not rational, and the people know it. The point is that your policies don't make any sense, and the people reject them, and they're going to reject you at the next election.

Thus it's no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that they have to waste $25 million on propaganda. It's no wonder that we have to see the ridiculous spectacle of the hiring of Doug Heal and his band of Hollywood fixers and now suffer the ignominy of having to pay $150,000 as taxpayers for the TV special which the minister himself just commissioned.

I have some questions for the minister: How many people watched the show? Was it more than 12 or less than 12? If it was more than 12, how many more than 12? Was it three, four or five more than 12? Did all of 17 people in British Columbia watch the show? That's our calculation, Mr. Chairman — between 12 and 17 citizens actually watched the program. That's our best guess. How many are registered members of the Social Credit Party? Between 14 and 17 is our figure. We'd like to know.

The New Democratic Party officially calculates that 17 people watched the TV show. It's our best guess that 14 of them were members of the Social Credit Party — paid up, in good standing — and the other three were tourists who watched it by mistake or didn't like hockey games. Seventeen people! Now I asked the public galleries today, and they all nodded their heads and said they hadn't watched it. I asked the government members, and they didn't nod at all — an indication that they hadn't watched it. Even the Chairman, who is neutral and impartial, wasn't able to provide the information that we were seeking, because we would have raised it to 18 if we could have. So our best guess is that 17 people watched the show. You know, Mr. Chairman, the minister himself has admitted that the cost of the show was $118,000. That's a heck of a price, and shortly, when I get my calculator, I'll work out what that was per head. But if it had 17 viewers and it cost $118,000, that's a lot of money per viewer.

Maybe it would have been better just to buy the viewers a new house or a car — you know, persuade them more directly to vote Social Credit next time. Wouldn't that have been more efficacious? I mean, it makes as much sense. Give them all toasters or trips to Hawaii or something. I mean if you want their votes, at least go after them directly. You know. there are 17 people who might have watched the show. If there are more than 17, tell us how many people watched the show. When you tell us that, tell us on what scientific basis you provide that information. Tell the committee as well what Goldfarb found out. We urge the minister to be candid with this committee, to come clean with the facts and to table undoctored, unedited and unreduced the entire Goldfarb report — which apparently will cost $6,000 to $7,000 — to tell us how few people watched the program, and of those few how many took it seriously. We too would like to know.

We ask the government through the minister to explain to us in this committee what Goldfarb was doing and to give us Goldfarb's report. It cost $118,000 to make it, $8,250 for B.C. Television expenses, an additional amount for advertising, $6,000 to $7,000 for Goldfarb — all for what? Apparently the "what" of it is to try to sell the people of British Columbia a policy that is so weak, inept, irrational and unsuccessful that the people of British Columbia have not spontaneously leapt to embrace it. If it were any good, the people of B.C. would know it. They know a good thing when they see it; that's why they support the agricultural land reserve. The NDP didn't have to hire Hollywood fixers to sell that policy. It was a good, sensible, progressive and farsighted policy. Now the Social Credit Party voted against it, but nonetheless....

The government didn't have to hire Hollywood fixers to sell the ombudsman policy either. I'd like to reiterate what my colleague from Alberni said: we support that; we support it strongly. We gave the government credit for it then and we give them credit for it now. The ombudsman is a good choice. It's a good office. It provides a necessary service. They didn't have to hire Hollywood fixers to sell that policy, because the worth of it was self-evident. If their energy policy had self-evident worth, they wouldn't have to hire Hollywood fixers for that either.

The minister has spent $118,000 on a TV show, $8,250 to air it on Channel 8, additional thousands to advertise it, and S6,000 or $7,000 to Goldfarb Consultants. So we guess it might cost....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Member, I disclosed the fact that the New Democratic Party found 17 people in British Columbia

[ Page 5556 ]

who actually watched the show — 14 were Social Credit members and three were tourists. That being the case, I wonder if the minister could tell us what in fact was spent on advertising this whole misadventure. How much did it cost to take out a full-page ad in TV Guide? How much did it cost to take out other advertisements? What is the total cost of advertising this program which apparently 17 people watched? Can the minister inform us whether or not additional expenses were incurred at Channel 8 for the production of the program?

Regarding the production, I have further questions for the minister. Who actually produced it, by name? Would the minister, please, table in this committee the names and occupations of each individual who worked on that film, the salaries they were paid and the expenses they were paid as well? We'd like to know something about the professional qualifications of the persons who did this show. We'd like to know whether or not the minister intends to hire them again. Apparently the show was a bomb, because no one watched it. Apparently it was a waste of money, because no one took it seriously enough to watch it. So we want to make sure that the same mistakes aren't repeated.

It may be that the minister himself is the fellow personally responsible for this mistake and that the film makers are not. Fair enough. If the minister says so, we won't ask too much more about the professional qualifications of the film makers. If he stands up and takes responsibility for this Hollywood turkey, we won't blame the film makers. But if he denies responsibility, then obviously someone is responsible — it might be the film makers. Tell us, Mr. Minister, who they are, what their qualifications are, how much salary they were paid, and how much they were paid in expenses. We'd like to know; then maybe we can take out our ad in TV Guide. Besides, when we come to nominate the productions of Social Credit — as we may do next year — to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, we want to make sure that we have the right names on the forms when we fill them out. When we nominate the Minister of Energy for outstanding supporting actor, we want to make sure that we've got all the names of the producers, directors, PR guys and so on right. When Price Waterhouse opens the envelopes they make sure all that is done right. It's important.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If we're to take Mr. Heal's work seriously, let's go all the way. Why not go to Hollywood directly? Next year when the New Democratic Party makes its formal nominations, to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and and Sciences, we want to make sure we don't omit anyone who contributed to this masterpiece, "Energy Theatre," that no one watched. We want to make darned sure we don't leave anyone out who really deserves the credit. Will the minister please tell us who these people were, what their qualifications were, what their salaries were and what their expenses were? It's important to know that.

Can the minister also tell us when he decided to make the film and what instructions he provided to the film makers about the coverage he personally would receive in it? On April 9 of this year the minister was somewhat reluctant to take credit for this masterpiece. The Vancouver Sun said: "McClelland was reluctant to discuss his profile in the film. After being asked repeatedly if he is in the film, McClelland finally admitted that 'they took some location shots at a number of mines. We took some location shots up at the new drilling site at the Nechako basin. I happen to get around a lot.'" Now get this, Mr. Chairman: "And I happened to be in some of those places at the same time the film crew was." What a happy coincidence! Maybe it was just a walk-on part; maybe it was a cameo; maybe he was a sort of guest on the show. It's hard to tell — a kind of guest appearance made by the minister, who happened to be in the well-known metropolis of the Nechako basin at the same time the film crew happened to be in the same town. Now if it was just a walk-on appearance or a cameo, did you get the standard ACTRA rate, or was there a special reduced rate for a cameo appearance? We need to know about this too. I'm on the public accounts committee, and I'd like to know so that I can prepare my questions in advance for the auditor-general.

The minister told the Vancouver Sun on April 9: "We took some location shots up at the new drilling site in the Nechako basin" — population four million. "I happen to get around a lot, and I happened to be in some of those places at the same time the film crew was" — having lunch at the Brown Derby North.

Will the minister tell us how it came to be that he happened to be in the Nechako basin? Is it beside the MGM's Grand Hotel? I've never been up there, but it's interesting to know these things.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You should go up there and find out what's happening around this province.

MR. BARBER: Oh, I will. I'd be happy to go.

Let me quote from the final paragraph of the same article. Again, Mr. McClelland says: "And yes, I made some statements as Minister of Energy."

Some statements, some minister, some story! Do you expect anyone to believe that? Do you expect anyone to believe that you just happened to be there when the film crew happened to be and you all got together by accident?

MR. LAUK: What did the three tourists say?

MR. BARBER: The three tourists? Well, two of them have gone back to California, and one has gone missing.

MR. LAUK: Did they bring frankincense?

MR. BARBER: Myrrh, frankincense and kodachrome.

No one will believe that the minister just happened to be there until he can give us some evidence to the contrary. Did the film crew not know you were there? Do they just go off on their own, lurching around the province with heavy cameras on their backs, and hope the minister would show up by accident? Is that how they make films in your department? Is that the way Mr. Heal runs these things? Do they just go flying off into the northern darkness waiting for a minister, any minister, to show up?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Have camera, will travel. We'll talk about Mr. Leiren sometime. I mean, is that how they did it at Kamloops when everyone showed up there? There's the film crew greeting the Premier; was that all a happy accident also?

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't in Kamloops.

MR. BARBER: Oh, they weren't in Kamloops; they were through Kamloops.

[ Page 5557 ]

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that this government looks increasingly ridiculous for two reasons. First of all their policies are not accepted by the people of British Columbia as being rational, supportable or intellectually honest, tough-minded and reasonable. The energy policies of this government have a narrow political objective, and the endless, disgraceful and irresponsible Canada-bashing of this minister is no excuse for a policy. No wonder your policies are so unpopular and you have to resort to hiring Hollywood fixers to shore them up with the people. If you'd stop engaging in Canada-bashing and start engaging in rational policy-making instead, you might find a bit more support.

The final questions I have for the minister are on his future plans for energy specials — his future plans for television appearances. Can the minister tell us what else he has in mind? Can the minister tell us what other television programs he intends to produce?

MR. LAUK: He's giving that exclusively to Photoplay.

MR. BARBER: Photoplay has the exclusive, is that right? We won't find out for a while? It's hard to know. But we'd like to know what other places he's going to show up at by accident, where film crews will just happen to be, by coincidence. We'd like to know whether or not you propose to schedule the next film against, for instance...

MR. KING: Barbara Walters.

MR. BARBER: ...Barbara Walters. Well, perhaps against "Archie Bunker's Place," or some other really clever timing for which this government is so famous when they arrange television time.

The minister will probably not appreciate the sardonic or even sarcastic tone of these remarks. Too bad. The people of British Columbia don't appreciate your waste of money. The people of British Columbia reject your policies, the fact that you have blown $150,000 on some turkey that no one watched, that you scheduled it against the National Hockey League play-offs, and that you used to try to explain policies even your own backbenchers can't support.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have those questions for the minister. I know that some of my own colleagues have a few more comments, but I do observe that there are only three government members in the House. In order to draw their attention to this important issue, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to film again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to introduce guests.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I've always said that there's a great deal of Merritt to my constituency. Today I'd like to introduce the mayor of Merritt, His Worship Jim Rabbitt, and the council of the city of Merritt to Victoria. Would you please join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to rise this afternoon and report great progress in the field of mining in the great province of British Columbia. I'm happy to be able to stand and support this great Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, because he has made great progress. Everybody in this great province of ours should rise and report on the great progress that has been made, particularly....

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, we're rising.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you're leaving because you don't want to hear what I've got to say, my friend. You can't stand the truth, so you're leaving the chamber. You're all vacating your seats because, my friends, you can't stand the truth.

I am not only happy but proud to stand in this Legislature this afternoon and report that since those dark days in the mining industry when the socialists were at the helm there has been great progress made in this province. I sat here the other day, listening with a great deal of interest to the socialist group over there — various speakers — fudging around and trying to say that it was the world price of minerals that drove the mining industry out of British Columbia between the years 1972 and 1975.

Oh, Mr. Chairman, how they laugh. It was certainly no laughing matter when they drove the mining industry — British Columbia's number two industry — out of British Columbia. Oh, they laugh about it and try to say that it was the world price of minerals. The world price of minerals had nothing to do with it, because the world price of minerals did not affect the great increase in mining activity in the Yukon and the great activity that took place in the Northwest Territories, in Ontario and in other countries of the world. The fact of the matter is — and make no mistake about, it's no laughing matter....

MR. HOWARD: Then what are you laughing for then? You're giggling.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not laughing, my friend, and I'm not giggling.

MR. HOWARD: You look like it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You hyenas over there can laugh and giggle all you want to, but it's a very serious matter.

I was reading a letter recently that the leader of the socialist hordes opposite wrote to one of the newspapers. He said the Social Credit government is doing nothing for see-

[ Page 5558 ]

ondary industry and nothing for manufacturing. The truth of the matter is that, sure, resource developments in the mining industry, in the coal-mining industry, and the great forest developments, all of those huge developments create a vacuum and a void which allows the small secondary manufacturers and the service industries to come in and take advantage. That is why literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses have been formed in this great province since 1975 — because of the great activity in the mining industry as a result of the policies of this government.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there's only one thing threatening the mining industry in British Columbia. The only threat that hangs over the heads of the mining industry and of all those small, secondary manufacturing industries and all the service industries that thrive from these great mining developments is the threat of another socialist government in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to make is that right at the height of that ridiculous oratory the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) walked out. He left. He couldn't stand that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, it is one thing to raise a point of order which, in fact, is not a point of order. It is another thing, however, to interrupt a member's speech on a point of order which the member fully realizes is not a point of order. There is a limit. We must all try and avoid interrupting other members on those kinds of points of order. I would commend that to all members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am used to that member for Skeena standing on what are not points of order at all, trying to interrupt the speaker and trying to make the speaker lose his train of thought. They don't want to hear the truth. I'll tell you the truth. Because we have low-grade ore bodies and they're difficult to find, to develop the mining industry in British Columbia is certainly a great credit to those private entrepreneurs out there, those people who were willing to put up their risk capital, to take the risk to develop these mines and to find the minerals. Because of the great creative engineering approach by our mining industry, we indeed are able to develop those mines. It takes a great deal of risk capital; it's a risk venture.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You wouldn't understand that, my friend. You don't know what mining is all about. It takes risk capital, and it's a risky venture. A large portion of that capital must flow in from outside this province.

The only threat that we have today against continuing to develop the mining industry in British Columbia is the threat of another socialist government in the province of British Columbia. They've tried on numerous occasions to say that they've changed their policy. They haven't changed their policy. They talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. They're trying to be all things to all people. But the truth of the matter is — as witnessed by the headlines in the Vancouver Sun last night — the same thing will happen to this province: "Socialist Government Elected in France," "People Losing Money on the Stock Market," "Risk Venture Will Flow Out of France." Don't you ever forget it, Mr. Chairman, and don't let the people of British Columbia forget it. The same thing would happen in this province. That is why the threat hangs over the heads of the mining industry.

It's our policies that have revitalized the mining industry in British Columbia, not the prices of metals. The prices of metals today on the world market are not high. They're not at an all-time low, but they're very close to it. With the price of minerals and the rest of the world being not in an economic recession but certainly not in boom periods, because of the policies of this government our mining industry is doing very well, thank you. You don't snap your fingers and bring on a mine. It takes years of planning and millions of dollars. That mineral is worthless in the ground. It's worthless to this generation; it's worthless to any generation. Those socialists over there can't seem to realize that a natural resource is not a natural resource until millions of dollars go into the production and it is available to be sold; only then is it a natural resource. They can't seem to get that through their thick heads.

We've got lots of minerals in the province of British Columbia. We haven't even scratched the surface yet. Those minerals are not going to be found and they're going to be to nobody's advantage unless there are policies, risk money, entrepreneurship and engineering skills available to make them into a worthwhile product so that they can be of some benefit to this generation and future generations.

I don't care how they fudge it around — the mining industry was driven out of British Columbia not by the price of metals on the world market, but by the policies of the socialist government, and nobody make any mistake about that. As I said, today I'm proud to rise here in this Legislature and support our Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, because great progress — indeed, fantastic progress — has been made and is being made in British Columbia's number two industry.

As I read the headlines last night I just had to stop and think that that's exactly what would happen in the province of British Columbia if ever a socialist government was elected here again.

AN HON. MEMBER: A dreadful prospect.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's no laughing matter.

With regard to mining, there are great things taking place in the coal mining industry. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and myself have been condemned for playing one part of the province against another. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), in a recent letter to a newspaper, stated that that's exactly what we were doing. I have said, and I will say again, that because this government brought in a proper coal mining policy there is coal mining taking place not only in southeast British Columbia, but a great development is taking part in the northeast part of the province. Just today, while the NDP are telling us that there'll be no more coal sold out of the southeast part of the province, Fording Coal announced the signing of a ten-year agreement to supply 350,000 tonnes per year of high volatile coking coal to China Steel Corporation in Taiwan, the contract to begin in April 1982. That is just one of many announcements that have taken place since April 1981, when it was decided northeast coal would go ahead. The socialists run around the province and say no more coal will be sold from the southeast

[ Page 5559 ]

because we're playing one area of the province against another. The truth of the matter is that if northeast coal had not gone ahead, those contracts would have gone to Australia, and the socialists would far sooner create jobs in Australia than they would in British Columbia. That's their policy: create jobs in Australia.

MR. HOWARD: That's a lie.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what would happen, my friend. That's the truth, and you know it! The socialists would far sooner create jobs in Australia than they would in British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: You're a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister will take his seat. I must insist that the member for Skeena withdraw the remark he made across the floor.

MR. HOWARD: No hesitation whatever, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about coal mining for just a moment, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. We have also been told by the opposition that we are going to flood the market: 7.5 million tonnes of coal from northeast British Columbia is going to flood the market.

Coal is the most abundant and the least utilized energy resource in our domestic market. Coal represents 72 percent of our known remaining fossil supplies, but it accounts for only 19 percent of current energy consumption. In terms of proven resources, we have 60 times more coal than oil on an energy equivalent basis, and over 40 times more coal than natural gas.

Mr. Chairman, in just a moment I'll tell you why I'm telling you this. Certainly more important is the fact that coal is cheaper than any of the other two fossil fuels, particularly for large stationary energy sources such as electric power generating stations. In May of 1980 the average delivered price paid by utilities for coal came to $1.33 per million BTU, whereas the comparable average prices paid for oil and gas were $4.03 and $2.12 respectively. Today that gap continues.

What good is the coal if it's in the ground, and not accessible by rail or road? It is of no use to us now, and it will be of no use to us in the future unless the infrastructure is put in place so we can get it out. What would be a better business deal than to have the export sale of a very small fraction of that reserve pay for most of the infrastructure, pay for the capital investment of the mines? So when we need that coal, when Canada needs that coal, or when British Columbia needs that coal, the export contract would have paid for the infrastructure, and paid for it at a time when the dollar is inflating. Every year that we hesitate and put it off, as the socialists would like us to do.... They say it's too early for northeast coal; it should be for some future generation. I don't know who's going to determine what the future generation is. Hold it off! They wanted to hold off the great power development. We'd have had a brownout in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the ironic part of it is that that socialist group over there are against everything today, the same as they have been for the last 30 years in this province: against this, against that, against anything. I don't know where they think the tax dollars are going to come from to pay the social benefits the people of this great province enjoy today.

Coal can be mined, transported and used safely, without significantly degrading our environment. The technology and the know-how to achieve these objectives has clearly been demonstrated. Sufficient laws are in place to ensure that both the mining and the burning of the coal to create energy are arranged so the environment is protected.

I would say that in addition to easing our balance of payments problem by replacing oil in many applications and thereby reducing our need for imports, coal can also make a very positive contribution by becoming an export commodity. Our balance of payments would be helped. That's why British Columbia is such a great corporate province and called a good corporate citizen. We're helping Canada. We will add billions through northeast coal to balance our trade deficit because of the imports. That's why northeast coal is such a good deal.

In 1980 the world coal trade was some 240 million tonnes of coal, including both coking and steam coal. Of this figure, 170 million tonnes were moved by sea. It is impossible to move coal by sea unless you have a port and the facilities to load the coal on ships. You can have all the coal in the world and all the railway transportation systems in the world, but if you don't have a port you can't sell the coal. What do we have here, again? Northeast coal is a catalyst to ensure that a great port will be built at Prince Rupert, and to put Canada a little bit further into the world trading of coal. That is just a byproduct of the policies of this government. Looking into the future, planning and selling are some of the things that that group over there are not capable of. They never will be capable of them.

By 1990 that figure of 170 million tonnes of coal moving by sea will increase to 240 million. By the year 2000, it will probably triple, largely due to the world demand for coal. Yet the socialists would have you believe that there is no market for coal. They are short-sighted. What did we do, Mr. Chairman? We did our studies, homework and planning. We didn't come out six days before an election like the socialists did in 1975, trying desperately to grab votes by announcing that northeast coal was going to go ahead. Oh, they were going to have northeast coal go ahead. They had done no planning. They had done no studies. They had no markets. But, oh, in 1975 the socialists stood up on a platform saying: "Northeast coal will go ahead." Today, five years later — after all of the planning, studies and detailed engineering — the market's captured. We announced northeast coal and the leader of the socialist group went on television and said: "Northeast coal must be stopped." Oh, yes. It was great for them in 1975, just before the election, to come out and announce that northeast coal was going to go ahead. No wonder the people of this province don't trust that socialist group over there.

There will be a market for our coal and minerals because one of the policies of this government has been: come and invest your money, bring in your risk capital and invest it — parts of it — in our mining industry, in our pulp and paper industry and in other industries in the province, but bring a market with that investment dollar. That's exactly what is happening in the great province of British Columbia. Bring in the risk capital. Bring in a market. There will be a great demand for our coal. But by far the most important consideration for the countries that need our coal, and one which is of grave concern to them, will be the ability of the major coal-

[ Page 5560 ]

producing countries — and I refer to the United States of America, Australia, South Africa and, indeed, Canada — to supply the demand. We have the coal, there's no doubt about that. But we can't supply the demand unless we have the infrastructure, the highways, investment by the private sector in the mines, the railroads and the port facilities. There's a market out there.

We're just selling a very small fraction of our known reserves. By selling that small fraction we will be able to pay for most of the infrastructure, which will be there for generations to come, so that we can facilitate additional sales. Last year the United States had sales for an additional 10 million to 15 million tonnes of coal. They couldn't sell it, Mr. Chairman. Do you know why they couldn't sell it? Because they didn't have the transportation or the port facilities to get it loaded on the ships. That is why it is so necessary that we build up our transportation systems and expand our port facilities, which is just another side benefit of opening the northeastern part of our province.

If you look into the future, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of reasons why coal will continue to be in demand. One of them certainly is the problem that we're having worldwide. We call it the nuclear slippage. Many nuclear plants are being delayed and many are put back on the shelf. That source of energy will not grow; it creates a demand for coal. Oil prices have doubled since 1979 and there is no relief in sight. That's certainly another reason for the Polish situation; Poland had been a big supplier of coal to the world markets. Another reason is the inability of China to become a major coal exporter. The shortfall in coal supply on a global basis is staggering, rising from some 20 million tonnes in 1980, to 50 million to 60 million tonnes in 1985, and over 100 million tonnes in 1990, and so on. Mr. Chairman, the socialists would have you believe that there is no market for our coal or that we are flooding the market.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the only threat we have to our coal mining industry, the only threat we have to our mining industry and the only threat we have to the future of our petroleum industry — major resource developments without which is created a void and a vacuum for our fabricating industries, for our small manufacturing industries and for our service industries — is the threat of the return of a socialist government to the province of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to be very quiet and very short. The debate has been a long one and I've missed most of it, which is perhaps an advantage and perhaps a disadvantage.

There is a problem in terms of confidence in the province of British Columbia. There is the deliberate attempt — and I have to say, on the part of the ministers opposite — to rewrite the history of what's happened in this province. I don't say that the years 1972 to 1975 were the best that we can ever achieve in this province, but they were very good in terms of the expansion in the production of minerals of all kinds — and by that I mean copper, zinc, molybdenum, coal, oil and natural gas. The figures in those years have been stated and should be put back on the record. The gain as shown from government publications of the Ministry of Mines was 114 percent in the total value of the production in those elements within three years. That record was better than the record from 1975 to 1980 where the production rose, it happens, by 114 percent in five years.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

If you look at the figures from the Economic Review of the province of British Columbia, you see that capital investment in British Columbia showed a growth rate between 1972 and 1975 which was probably as high as in any period in the history of British Columbia. The minister keeps saying: "You must explore to find new mines." Certainly we all recognize that; that's very obvious. And the new grub-staking legislation that we put on the books in the years 1972 to 1975 is still largely what you have today in terms of the greater incentives for people to go out and explore.

I have to admit there is a negative factor, Mr. Chairman, and I regret that it is the case. I'll just say this and sit down. Not only from the years 1972 to 1975 were the prominent Social Credit speakers crying doom and gloom about the mining industry and destroying investment confidence, but they're doing that today. The minister has just taken his place, and sat down with the ringing statement that the return of a social-democratic government in British Columbia would kill off investment confidence and destroy the mining industry all over again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Right. What happened in France?

MR. MACDONALD: You say right, and you rewrite history. I'm not going to raise my voice. I've listened to this debate, and listened to these people go out and misrepresent the past throughout the province of British Columbia. I'll try and keep myself as calm, cool and collected about it as I can. But I say this: at some time in the future there may be a social democratic government in this province. There's one in France, there's been one in Germany, and in other parts of the world. There's been one in Saskatchewan, which is very successful in terms of mineral production. You get up and say: "If that happens the mining industry will be killed." You are therefore again crying doom and gloom as far as your province is concerned. For the sake of your own political fortunes you say that any other government will destroy confidence.

MR. BRUMMET: Your policies will.

MR. MACDONALD: They didn't in the past, Mr. Member.

MR. BRUMMET: They did.

MR. MACDONALD: No, they didn't. Look at the figures. Be honest and fair for once. Look at the figures and look at the results. Can you honestly get up and say that there have been two greater accomplishments in the mineral field than the Afton smelter outside Kamloops, which was certainly initiated in the NDP period.... The other one — and I don't say that we're the greatest thing that ever happened in the world — is the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. Both of those little babies that started in the NDP years, particularly the Petroleum Corporation have brought great benefit to the province of British Columbia — so great that you didn't turn your backs on it. Natural gas and petroleum are part of the mining scene, and those are accomplishments that can never be knocked so far as this province is concerned.

[ Page 5561 ]

I say to you that when you go out there and say, "Any other government but us will destroy and kill off the mining industry and destroy investment confidence," you're putting the welfare of your own political hides against the welfare of the province which you ought to be serving. From 1972 to 1975 you did that on such a scale that, yes, for a long period of time you scared off new prospecting. I remember it very well. The author of that scare is sitting right over there and smirking, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I'll debate with you anywhere in the province on these points. You were part of the problem, as an opposition, with your irresponsible criticism and misrepresentation of the facts, Mr. Minister. And today you are putting the welfare of your political hide over the welfare of the province of British Columbia.

Look at the figures and let's see who can compete in this chamber for the best resource development policy. Put your figures up against ours. That's fair, competitive debate. But let's get away from this knock, knock, knock and saying: "Oh, if we happen to lose office everything will go to pieces." It isn't true, you know it isn’t true, and you should get the politics out of this thing and see who has the best plans to develop this province as it should be developed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can't let that little talk by the ex-Minister of Energy pass me by, because I think I hit a sore spot. He mentioned the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation as one of the great crowning jewels when he was Minister of Energy — that it did great things for this province. The British Columbia Petroleum Corporation didn't do anything except collect the same royalties that would have been brought into the government anyway. The Petroleum Corporation was set up so that they could take over and do their own drilling, exploration and production, and probably have a string of gas stations around called Barrett's Pumps. That's what the Petroleum Corporation was set up to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, it collected the royalties in a different manner than we were collecting them, but it didn't bring any additional revenue into the province.

That minister over there, when he was Minister of Energy.... As I've told him before, he should work for Hollywood, because he created more ghost towns in the Peace River country than you could shake a stick at. I was MLA representing that area. and you didn't dare get on the road between British Columbia and the Alberta border because you'd have been run over by oil rigs leaving the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, production, sure. The wells drilled by the previous government.... He stands up and brags about mineral production. My lord, they should have sold minerals during their period, because in 1973-74 the prices for minerals were the highest in the history of the world. Not only were the prices high, there was a demand, and certainly the mining companies were selling their minerals, because the mines were in production. But what the gentleman who just spoke fails to tell you about, which is the truth, is the investment in new mines — prospectors going out and engineers leaving. That cannot be denied, as I said just a few moments ago standing in this House. You don't snap your fingers and bring on a mine. It has to be explored for and proven out. That is the portion of the industry that they drove out of this province. They did drive them out of this province.

MR. MACDONALD: Look at the figures. You never quote figures.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The figures are there. Claims stakes are down. Investment in mines is down. I'll quote you the figures, my friend. They're there and you know them.

MR. MACDONALD: You never do. Politics and scare tactics — that's all you're worth.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman. that man over there can yack and yack all he wants to. The mining industry and those people involved in the mining industry — the engineers and the prospectors — know the truth.

MR. MACDONALD: I'n trying to read a book. Will you shut up?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No matter how many speeches that member makes he can't cover up the truth. Young people in this province who, want to become involved in the mining industry — mining geologists — are going back to school because there were no jobs. We had established in this province probably the best mining technology and competence to be assembled anywhere in the world.

I was on a plane flying to Australia last fall. Sitting in front of me was a Canadian. He says: "Who are you?" I told him who I was. He said: "I used to live in British Columbia. Yes, I was a mining, geologist in British Columbia. During the Barrett days I had to go elsewhere to seek employment. That's why now I'm running a mine in southern Australia." I forget the exact location. The mine and his company are employing hundreds of people.

You know, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, you can make all the speeches you want to, but you'll never shove that political rhetoric of yours down the throats of the mining industry, because they know better. Look at Kamloops. I remember going into Kamloops in early 1976. It was practically a ghost town, because Kamloops thrives on the mining industry. I hope those people in Kamloops will forget it was practically a ghost town. Look at it today: houses, construction, prosperous people, opportunities for the young people and jobs created mainly by the mining industry, but also created by the cattle industry, because of our policy of going in there and irrigating and growing several crops in one year. It was a great policy of this government.

I just couldn't sit here and allow that minister over there to say there was no gas in the Grizzly Valley and we should never build a pipeline.

MR. MACDONALD: I didn't say anything of the kind.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh. you didn't say anything of the kind. When we announced the Grizzly Valley pipeline, what did they say? "Don't build a pipeline. There's no gas down there." That's a prime example of what I'm talking about. There was gas down there. but there would never be

[ Page 5562 ]

any more because nobody is going to put hundreds of millions of dollars into drilling holes and doing exploration if the stuff is going to stay there forever. So we said: "We'll build a pipeline." What did I predict? I predicted that after we would announce that we would build a pipeline, there would be more exploration, more drilling and more reserves proved up. That's exactly what happened. But the NDP did not want the project to go ahead. They had the opportunity to build that pipeline when they were government. They said: "No, there's no gas down there." Yet that member stands up and brags about the NDP, the socialists, their mining policies and their petroleum policies. I could use some terminology to describe it, but it's unparliamentary.

MR. MACDONALD: You're just playing politics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East who says that I'm just playing politics — you go out there and meet those miners the same as I did in the Hotel Vancouver after you brought in Bill 31 and tell me I'm playing politics. I'm stating the truth and you well know it. You go out there, my friend, and talk to the mining industry and the petroleum industry. Political, nothing! Facts of life, my friend!

MR. LEA: Bring your figures in, then.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll bring the figures in. We've got lots of figures, but I don't have to bring the figures in to tell the mining industry, because they know.

MR. MACDONALD: Scare, scare, scare.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, maybe so, but it's factual. It's time the people of this province were told the facts.

It's a sad and sorry history of the three great industries in this province. If these weren't the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources I could talk about what happened in numerous other industries, like the forest industry. Now, because of policies and faith in the future of our policies and in this government, indeed there is economic development — planned economic development and projects on the drawing board. I'm using scare tactics, but I know what would happen if there was a socialist government elected in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: You'd lose your job.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those plans for development would be put on the shelf, that's what would happen. No, I won't lose my job; not as long as there's a threat of the socialists around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before recognizing the next member, there has been quite a bit of skirting of comments that might indicate to the committee that another member in the committee — this has come from both sides of the committee — is misrepresenting the facts. It's common for the committee to have to accept two contrary opinions, but one cannot be unparliamentary to the degree where he would indicate that another member is wilfully misrepresenting facts to the committee.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have to respond to the plea from the other side to give the facts that the minister was talking about. I'd just like to read them into the record, because they're important. I understood the member for Vancouver East to indicate that because of the grubstake program that the New Democratic government brought in, mineral claims were — I don't know if he used the term "at record levels," but he certainly indicated that they were very healthy, to paraphrase him.

MR. MACDONALD: I said that that's the basis of a good foundation of growth in mineral exploration in B.C.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member said that his grubstake program was the foundation of growth for mineral exploration. I'd just like to read to you about that growth. In 1971 new mineral claims were 58,000. In 1972 they went up to 79,000. Then something started to happen. In 1973 they went down to 36,000. In 1974 they went down to 17,000. In 1975 they went down to 12,000. That's a terrible decline in the numbers of new mineral claims recorded in this province at a time when that member says they were building a solid foundation for growth. That kind of growth we can't stand.

I'd like to point out what happened. We hit bottom in 1975 with 11,751 new mineral claims recorded. In 1980 we recorded 72,349 new mineral claims. That's an increase in five years of 516 percent. They want the facts. I can't help it. I must give them to them.

The member credits the B.C. Petroleum Corporation with doing the same kind of thing. What happened to exploration in the oil and gas industry? The oil and gas industry isn't any different than the mining industry, because if you don't drill holes and look for it, you don't find it and don't have gas wells and a resource. As long as it's still in the ground it may be a resource someday, a hundred or a thousand years from now, but it isn't a resource today.

What happened in the exploration for oil and gas because of that great policy the previous government put in place? In 1971 we had 201 wells drilled in this province. In 1972 we had 225. Then something strange started to happen. Things started going down instead of up, not only in the mining industry but in the oil and gas industry as well. In 1973 we were down to 178 wells. In 1974 we were down to 148 wells. In 1975 we were down to rock bottom: there were 82 wells drilled. There was a steady decline throughout the entire time that party was in office.

Again, what's happened since? That decline in exploration came at the time of OPEC, when prices were being forced up to incredible levels — which no one in the world had expected. Did we take advantage of those incredible increases in prices? No way. We were declining on a steady basis. I'm happy to say that as a result of progressive government policy, the increases started almost immediately — the year after the rock-bottom figure of 82. In 1976 there were 190 wells drilled in this province; the next year, 340; the next year, 393; the next year, about 400. As a matter of fact, we see the results today of how quickly disastrous and foolish government policies can affect a resource industry. Today we see exploration leaving British Columbia again, not because of provincial government policy but because of a foolish federal government policy. The point is that foolish policies have disastrous and very speedy effects on the economy of a resource-based province. I'm very happy that we don't have those foolish policies with us any more and that we don't

[ Page 5563 ]

stand the chance, at least provincially, of seeing those drastic declines again.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to address you again. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said: "Give us the facts. Give us the figures." The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said the same thing. I have a few here which I thought would be timely. I quote from the Colonist, October 6, 1973: "The Mining Association of British Columbia reported Friday that the mining industry in B.C. showed a marked decline in expansion in 1972 compared to 1971 when it reached a peak." That was the year of the great Social Credit government, when things were on the upswing. What happened then? Here are some facts. The report also states that capital expenditures in mining dropped to $112 million in 1972, the lowest total in the last five years and only 33 percent of the 1971 level of $340 million. A forecast of capital expenditure for 1973 showed a total of $61 million, while those in subsequent years are expected to reduce even more. Can anybody with consideration for the facts get up and say otherwise? The reports are everywhere. Any paper you'd pick up in those three years said mining was on the decline; mining was dying. Next to forestry, mining is the life-blood of British Columbia. One is inseparable from the other.

Mr. E.C. Higgs, administrative assistant in the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, said on Saturday in a speech to the second annual convention of the Society of Engineering Technologists that mining is being driven down a dead-end road. He was very positive. Let us realize what can happen to mining through the policies of that opposition. If they ever happen to be in a position to put their policies into effect, the same tragic tale would be repeated; the 17,000 people who are now gainfully employed would be out of work, not to mention the other thousands employed.

Higgs goes on to tell the delegates at the Hyatt Regency Hotel that provincial legislation such as the Mineral Royalties Act, the Mineral Land Tax Act, the Prospectors' Assistance Act, an amendment to the Mineral Act and the Placer Mining Act are "putting the industry in reverse gear." How could anyone in that opposition say that they managed mining? I say that mining was in a state of total disaster.

As they are doing here today, they had a tendency to brag about what they did when they were government. But they did some things which I would say boomeranged. I can tell you that this boomeranged. This is from the Colonist, June 13, 1974: "Premier Barrett admitted in the Legislature Wednesday that he used incorrect figures last week when he cited profits made last year by the B.C. mining industry. The Premier said he was wrong when he said that Kaiser Resources made a $13 million profit last year compared to their $1 million profit the year before. Kaiser actually lost $13 million." Can you match that up? This is their own Premier saying this; it's not conjecture. Kaiser actually lost $13 million; he said Kaiser made $13 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get the real figures.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's in the Colonist, or whatever paper.... This was said in the Legislature. It's probably in Hansard too. "'Kaiser actually lost $13 million in 1972, and turned a profit of $4 million only in 1973,' the Premier said, and he wished to correct his error." I should hope he would.

Let's get to the real part — why mining went downhill. "They said: 'We'll be fair with business.' Then the government set out to define what was fair. He said the government would be dealt with fairly, but if companies did not agree with the government's definition of fair, then we'll deal with someone else.'" That's fair play. That's gun-to-the-head negotiations. "The government set out to define what was fair to private industries such as natural gas, petroleum, mining and others. In each case the industries disagreed that it was fair, and the government's policies not only failed, but failed spectacularly."

The man the government hired was Arlon Tussing. He was sent out to make a report. Here's a small section of his report. "Incentives for exploration, according to Arlon Tussing, a consultant brought in by the government to discuss gas policy.... He said: 'The attitude of trust had been shattered more thoroughly in British Columbia than anywhere else in North America, because the producers simply won't trust you, the government.'" I think those are pretty strong words.

These are the people who stand up and say: "We can manage. We can handle the future of British Columbia." I can't understand how they can talk this way. If there were only one or two reports.... But the reports are everywhere. It's almost embarrassing to bring them up. There are hundreds of them. Every mining journal you pick up will tell you of the disaster created by that group when they were in government.

I'm only saying this because it's important for the public to understand. If only the public would hear, but how do you get the message out there? That's what bothers me. The public have other things to do. They're busy and they forget. How do you get the message out? The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was very proper this morning in saying that private sector interests should be people interests. They are people interests.

MR. MACDONALD: What estimate are you on, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm on the estimate of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Natural gas to Vancouver Island is a peoples interest. What are we talking about today? The minister, in his rebuttal, has said more than once today that the gas line should have been built in 1972 when the previous Social Credit government under W.A.C. Bennett had it established and ready to go. They could have built the line for $60 million. What did that government do? They chopped it off. Today we're talking about $360 million for the same gas line. The people have been suffering and paying for it these last five years. Yet they will object. I don't understand it.

The shocker came this afternoon when the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).... This is what they're good at. I hate to bring it up, but I was ashamed of that opposition today when the member for New Westminster referred to "Bert Price's daughter." Instead of having the respect to say Mrs. Taylor, he had to make the point that she was the daughter of Bert Price, a former member of this House. I think that that was disgusting and I'm ashamed that it was necessary to bring the matter up. Aside from that, Mrs. Taylor has proved herself to be a competent administrator. Yet we hear the talk that goes on continuously, with total disregard for the facts.

[ Page 5564 ]

Every newspaper proved how the Department of Mines, particularly, was going down the tube in those three years. I could read more, but why waste the time of this House. I think it's time that the minister's salary estimate was passed, because he has done the job second to none. This Legislature is only wasting time and treading water in this debate.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss a couple of matters under this minister's estimates concerning B.C. Hydro. I'd like to talk briefly on the Stikine-Iskut and Laird projects. Presently the Stikine-Iskut project will be on stream approximately next year, when B.C. Hydro has stated they'll go for their water licence. They've put out the figure of $7.6 billion today for the entire complex. Now if the present debt of B.C. Hydro of approximately $6.4 billion is to be increased to $7.2 billion in the legislation before us, that's an increase of approximately $3 billion in two years since 1979.

We see $17 million to date on a feasibility study on the Stikine-Iskut project. This figure of $17 million came about on April 16 this year. When the government went down to New York to float $100 million worth of bonds, they had to put a prospectus to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in which they stated that $17 million had already been spent to date on the feasibility studies of the Stikine-Iskut.

Just this year, B.C. Hydro was denied an access road into the Stikine-Iskut dam sites, particularly Site Z, by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, in a decision supported by the majority of residents in the Stikine Valley. I'd like to quote from the Vancouver Province for January 27, 1981. The headline is: "Hydro Seeks Okay on Stikine Study." "The application was made to the B.C. Lands ministry earlier this month. It came in the guise of a road construction application to allow Hydro to bring heavy equipment into a site called Site Z, midway between Telegraph Creek and Dease Lake."

It further states that the project from Hydro itself would cost $7.6 billion. If a Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro has a debt of $6.4 billion, which is going to be increased this year to $7.2 billion, we wonder what kind of financial responsibility B.C. Hydro and this government have, to allow billions and billions of dollars' worth of debts for something of this nature. It's unbelievable that just a few years ago this government was accusing the NDP government of the day of shovelling out money and of an overrun of approximately $100 million in Human Resources. If we compare $100 million with $7.2 billion, I wonder which is the best for the province.

Another issue I'd like to discuss is a letter I wrote to the minister on April 18, 1980. It's addressed to Bob McClelland, and I paraphrase: "I have received the B.C. energy supply and requirements forecast booklet for 1979 through 1996. There are a few topics I'd like to discuss with you at some stage. First, if you predict a modest increase of 3 percent annually to 1986, and 2 percent annually between 1986 and 1996 for energy, why is there a need to build the Stikine-Iskut or Laird dams?" Hydro's figures are higher than the minister's estimates by almost 100 percent.

Further on this issue was a letter directed to the minister on February 19, 1980. One of the problems with the Stikine-Iskut project is the mode of B.C. Hydro, and the way they're seeking feasibility studies on this aspect. They put out a report on April 25, 1979, concerning Hydro's statement that "contentious information" and project cost should be hidden from the public. I doubt if the minister would appreciate having any Crown corporation making a statement like that, yet on April 25, 1979, a Hydro publication stated that contentious information and project cost should be hidden from the public.

This was further stipulated in the article by Moira Farrell in the Vancouver Sun on February 18, 1980: "Hydro Report Bars Northern Power Plan...." "The minutes show a Hydro staff plan" — and I'm quoting from the fourth paragraph — "to keep contentious information and project costs hidden from the public. They also reveal that it would be difficult to link small northern developments into the system, which is primarily designed to benefit southern British Columbia."

It further states in the interdepartmental memo that they quoted us on why small communities in the north would not be able to get power. It's not a simple matter to tap small amounts of power off an extra-high voltage line for local use such as mines, sawmills or townsites in northern British Columbia. We have a developing constituency, Mr. Chairman, and if you're going to put in a dam which is going to destroy a major salmon river, one of the last salmon producing rivers in this province, with a $7.6 billion dam, and Hydro further states that none of the local communities up in the north are going to get power from it, the residents in the north are wondering why you're doing it, why you're destroying a major salmon-producing river. Secondly, why does Hydro make statements that no northern townsite is going to receive power?

I continue with this document — and this was also reported in the Vancouver Sun: "System design suggests that consultants be asked to prepare a less detailed summary, designed for public release and touching only on those aspects which influence the design and focus on ongoing studies." Mr. Chairman, this appears to be another cover up by B.C. Hydro, in telling their own engineers who are giving reports to the government to prepare less detailed studies, to keep contentious information out of it, and to touch only on aspects which influence the design and focus on an ongoing study. It's unbelievable that a Crown corporation is going to doctor reports to any government.

I would certainly hope that the minister — and this was pointed out to him first on February 18, 1980 — would simply get in and seek to alleviate this attempted coverup by B.C. Hydro's own engineers who are making reports stating that contentious information should be left out of it. Mr. Chairman, it is also interesting — and I made a statement about this in the House last year — that this report states which groups not to contact, including native people and trappers. They identified five different groups of people not to contact. It just so happened that the five groups that B.C. Hydro asked not to contact made up 95 percent of all the residents in the Stikine Valley.

Going further on this whole issue of the Stikine-Iskut dam, there has to be some address, Mr. Chairman, before we start spending further money on a project, when there is an international treaty that more or less states that it's illegal to put any type of dam structure on the Stikine River. I refer the minister to the Treaty of Washington, 1871, subsection 26, which states that there shall be no hindrance placed upon the river for free access. Now this is a very contentious information with our neighbours in Alaska.

After their meeting with the Premier up in Whitehorse, Governor Hammond at that time supported the information

[ Page 5565 ]

that the Premier had given. It is interesting that three days later the Governor changed his tune after seeing factual documents concerning the entire Stikine-Iskut project. I'll go on longer, if the Premier would like to take his seat, and we'll talk about Governor Hammond's meeting. Within a week after Governor Hammond changed the tune, the Alaska Legislature passed a unanimous resolution opposing the Stikine-Iskut project that this government and B.C. Hydro would like to develop.

Mr. Chairman, we've seen a continuing coverup, to a certain extent, concerning the Stikine-Iskut. One of the first project description papers came out in May of 1979; it's a one-page report — Prospectus '79 was the document's title — in which certain statements were made by B.C. engineers and support staff concerning the Stikine-Iskut. One of them says:

"However, migration habits and mainstream spawning and rearing could be affected by upstream flow regulations.

"Secondly, involvement of the federal governments of Canada and the United States would be required. At this time it appears from the Alaska resolution that was passed and forwarded to President Reagan to have Secretary of State Alexander Haig investigate on Alaska's behalf on what is going on in the Stikine-Iskut River concerning involvement by this government in a multi-billion dollar project to serve southern British Columbia and export south...."

Mr. Chairman, we have also found this in the B.C. Hydro document dated January 16, 1979. This is from Mr. A.J. Collins, and I'll read from the second paragraph:

"Firstly, from a ministry's and citizen's view this project should be encouraged, as the loss of other valuable resources is minimized and the total capacity is equal to the 1976-77 usage by B.C. consumers. This does not include the surplus being sold to the United States at a substantial discount."

I would like the minister to be able to get up and state that this report stating that surplus of power being sold to the United States at a substantial discount is erroneous and not the policy of government. A document like this, stating that residents in the United States are receiving discounts on power from B.C. Hydro, is totally erroneous. It should not be the policy of any government to provide power cheaper to a foreign country.

Another report that I dealt with is a report on northern hydro development and transmission studies. The report number is SD1020, dated October 1979. It also states in this report that potential Indian land-claims issues should be ignored by the government, and that native people should not be contacted. This came through the Ian Hayward report that B.C. Hydro commissioned. Subsequently it came about that the five native socio-economic groups in the Stikine basin were not to be contacted, particularly concerning the development. We find that the Tahltan and Iskut people use this river for their livelihood. A very positive commercial fishing venture has been started on the Stikine River. It's now in its third year of operation, and develops profits for the Tahltan band for development of their local area.

We've also found a disregard for the native people in the Stikine valley, and when it comes to consultation with the Tahltan and Iskut people, B.C. Hydro has constantly ignored those people and met with them on a once-a-year basis. I would certainly hope the minister could encourage B.C. Hydro to come up to the Stikine valley more often and hold more open-house meetings with the Tahltan native people to explain what their plans are.

There have been many organizations opposing the Stikine-Iskut venture, and probably the largest group is the Friends of the Stikine from Vancouver. They have lobbied against the dam development, and a particular interest they showed was on the application to develop road access into Site Z, which was denied earlier this year by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing at Smithers. Consequently B.C. Hydro have reapplied to have their permit granted. The Friends of the Stikine are a very large organization simply saying that before there's any development and further spending, on the Stikine — by B.C. Hydro's own figures approximately $17 million has been spent to date — public hearings should be held to find out exactly why this dam needs to be built and to whose benefit it will be.

Earlier I'd spoken concerning the Premier's involvement. It's a shame: I saw him sitting down and then he left again for the bunker.

Concerning the Alaska involvement, we noticed a number of reports. Firstly, I'd like to read an article from the Province: "Bennett Eases Yukon Fears Over the Stikine." This happened in February when the hon. Premier met with Governor Hammond of Alaska in Whitehorse. The possible damming of the Stikine was one of the major topics discussed between the two leaders. Some of the information supplied to the Governor of Alaska seemed at that time to sway his opinion. Following a visit up to Juneau undertaken on February 2 through February 5 by myself and the support staff from the NDP, we held meetings with the Governor's staff, who put out a press release on February 4. 1981, which said: "Hammond Aide Clarifies Stikine River Dam Stance." Governor Hammond put out a four-page release stating that he was misquoted by the Premier, that he never gave any assurances on Alaska's involvement on the Stikine-Iskut and that they wanted further studies and discussions made. It was interesting to note at that time that the Premier had given Governor Hammond a document which he said was not available in the province of British Columbia. The reports of the day came out that once it got into Alaska hands through their Freedom of Information Act, it would become public in British Columbia. What the Premier failed to advise the meeting and the press people of the day attending the meeting was that document was given out three months earlier to the people of British Columbia. It was no secret document to alleviate the Alaska fears.

After that the reports started coming out of Alaska, particularly an Associated Press report on April 12, 1981: "Stikine Dam Plan Protested by Alaska." I'd like to just read a few topics on this:

"Alaska officials have asked U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig to initiate bilateral talks with Canada about a series of dams proposed on the Stikine River in northern British Columbia. Governor Jav Hammond and members of the Alaska congressional delegation sent a letter to Haig last week expressing deep concern over the proposed hydroelectric project and asking the State Department to initiate meetings in Juneau next month involving, Canadian, United States and state officials. Crown-owned B.C. Hydro has proposed a series of dams on the Stikine River." Further on in the article it says:

[ Page 5566 ]

"Moreover, there are issues of access, timber, wildlife and mineral deposits intertwined with the development of B.C. Hydro's project which will affect the use and management of the Stikine River drainage in both Canada and the United States."

The last paragraph of the article I'd like to read says:

"The letter is a follow-up to a resolution recently approved unanimously by the Alaska Legislature, asking Reagan to direct Haig 'to take steps to facilitate the exchange of information between Canadians and Americans concerning this proposed dam site.'"

It's unbelievable that we have to have President Reagan have Secretary of State Alexander Haig get involved in B.C. politics because of a scheme to build a $7.6 billion dam in northern British Columbia. I certainly wouldn't like to attend the meeting that the Premier might hold with Secretary Haig, knowing the details of what happened when Japanese coal ministers and businessmen met with this government and took him on a scam concerning price increases. I just wonder what Alexander Haig is going to get out of this government in the way of a sellout, or whatever the case may be, concerning the export of power.

We noticed on February 4 that there was front page coverage in most of the Alaska papers concerning the meeting we held in which information that was unavailable before to the Alaska Legislature and government was released to them. It was unbelievable the interest the Alaskans showed in information that they had asked for previously from this government, and it appeared to be denied. I certainly hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources will be able to cooperate a bit more with the Alaska Legislature concerning the exchange of information.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the problems that the minister probably finds himself intertwined with is that it's difficult for this minister to get information out of B.C. Hydro. It appears at times that B.C. Hydro runs the government, not the other way around. If it didn't run the government, how could it develop such a massive debt of $7.6 billion that the taxpayers of this province have to front and fund? We definitely need to bring B.C. Hydro into line a little bit, concerning financial and physical responsibility. A $7.6 billion debt, increased by $3 billion in two years, is much too much.

Secondly, a recent article by the Friends of the Stikine in April 1981, said: "Alaska Takes Action Against Stikine-Iskut Project." Governor Hammond — who Premier Bennett stated was supporting the project — stated in late January 1981 that in their meeting on January 28, "Premier Bennett assured Governor Hammond that the dams would not affect the downstream fishing industry." Well, within a month Governor Hammond subsequently announced that he did not endorse the Stikine dam project by any means. After consulting with federal Fisheries officers and learning of the denial of a road-access permit by B.C. Lands, he took this stand: "I do not think it's an appropriate project. I do not think it's warranted, I do not think it's cost-effective, I do not think it's viable, and I do not think it should be built." This was the Governor of Alaska, Jay Hammond, in a letter to Premier Bennett concerning the Stikine-Iskut dam. Governor Hammond is speaking of issues that we brought last year to this minister, concerning the Stikine-Iskut dam and the total waste of $7.6 billion to build a white elephant.

When you look at the transmission from this northernmost dam down to Vancouver and farther south to heat swimming pools in California, the transmission lines alone are going to be 1,150-kilovolt lines, which are some of the largest transmission lines in the world. If B.C. Hydro has its way and builds two 750-kilovolt lines, approximately 30 percent of the power from the damsite, until it gets on stream to the provincial power grid just a little bit north of Terrace, will be lost through transmission. It's unbelievable that it's going to spend $2 billion on transmission costs alone and that 30 percent of the power is going to evaporate into the air.

Mr. Chairman, could you ask the House Leader not to bang his forehead on his desk; it's interrupting my speech.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought you needed the encouragement.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, your forehead certainly helps in encouragement.

The last issue I would like to talk about is the Laird project. While the Stikine project will destroy a major salmon river, the Laird project will affect the Kasika people. A report in the Sun newspaper for September 13, 1979, says: "New Dams Would Force out 667 People."

"A total of 667 people will be flooded out of their homes if B.C. Hydro goes ahead with their proposed dams on the Laird River. The figure is contained in a secret B.C. Hydro report obtained by the Vancouver Sun. It also points out that the flooding will result in the loss of the most scenic and challenging portion of the Laird River, and three or four established and proposed provincial parks."

Where these people will be flooded out is at a reserve in Lower Post, and the other reserve is Upper Laird.

It's unfortunate that B.C. Hydro would want to go ahead and develop a dam on the 60th parallel of this province and force out 667 native people who have lived from time immemorial in the area. The Laird project, which is another white elephant when it comes to the transmission of power from the 60th parallel to the 49th parallel, will lose 50 percent of the power in transmission. That's according to Hydro's own figures.

What I suggest to the minister, when it comes to building white elephant dams for billions of dollars, is to use some of our untapped rivers for local consumption dams and local development, instead of building massive dams which will destroy.... The Stikine project will destroy a salmon industry of the native people. The Laird project will cost close to $10 billion. The alternative is to build some local consumption projects.

One of the major areas where we can look at this is in our favourite area of Amax. Just a little bit north of Amax is an area called Anyox, where I believe the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) was born back in 1837. Anyox at the present time has a reservoir left over from the old mine back in 1935, which could be used to generate enough power for the Lower Nass-Stuart, the Groundhog coal-fields, and the Kutcho Creek development. It has no effect whatsoever upon any fishing area or native trapping area. It's already in place; it's just been sitting gathering dust for 35 years since Anyox closed down. This could be revitalized to produce power for the Stewart and lower Nass area.

Secondly, in the northern part of the riding we have a number of rivers, in particular the Cottonwood, where Cas-

[ Page 5567 ]

siar Asbestos was looking at a local consumption dam to provide power. It would cost them approximately $34 million to provide a dam that would keep the Erickson gold-mine, Cassiar Asbestos Corp. and three other mines in the area in hydro power. Instead of building massive dams like the Stikine-Iskut and the Laird we should be looking at local consumption dams for development. We should encourage mines that are in place now and mines that will be developed in the future to use power from dams that do not destroy salmon stocks or have any adverse effect upon native people.

I would certainly hope the minister could take those suggestions, because right now the diesel power used by a lot of mining companies is expensive and a wrong type of energy source in this province. By the same token, when you're going to build a Stikine-Iskut dam and B.C. Hydro says they're not going to supply power to small mining communities of 200 or 300 people because it's not an easy job to tap small amounts of power off a high-voltage line, then this government, or the government to be elected next, should be looking at local consumption dams to provide power for development in the north instead of massive billion-dollar white elephants to send power south to keep swimming pools in California warm.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just a couple of comments. I certainly will take under advisement the member's suggestions about smaller power developments for local consumption. As a matter of fact, at the present time those kinds of things are under study by the ministry, plus B.C. Hydro. I think some of the things happening around the world would prove that there can be some more innovative ways in which power can be provided for people rather than only large-scale hydroelectric projects or large-scale power projects of any kind. Those are good suggestions, and I'll be happy to keep the member up to date in any way I can as some of these things may come to fruition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

On the matter of the Stikine-Iskut and the Laird generally, Hydro does have what it considers to be a responsibility to ensure that all the ways in which it can meet the needs of the people of British Columbia in the future are put forward for ultimate approval. Certainly from time to time there are disagreements about what those needs are. They have shown up on a number of occasions with different forecasts about the kinds of requirements we'll have over the next many years. I can say to the member — I said it in the House the other day — that we have requests before us for massive amounts of electricity for industrial development, as much as we now produce in the whole hydroelectric system. We know we can't meet all those requirements, but I believe that if we're to continue to develop the economy of the province we must meet some of them. The question is how many and how. Those are things that the government will have to decide, taking into account many of the things that many members say about how we make those developments viable.

With respect to contact with the natives, in terms of some of the activity which is going on in those areas, I have very recently instructed B.C. Hydro to make sure they get as much input from and consultation with the natives in the areas in which they're concerned as they possibly can. I hope that that will go on. I think B.C. Hydro has a pretty fair record of consulting natives in other areas where they've been affected.

I do want to bring up one matter about hydroelectric exports. We're not really in the business of developing hydroelectricity for heating swimming pools in California. We do sell some power, but not very much, as a matter of fact. At times when water levels are high and there's a surplus available, we do take advantage of a pretty lucrative spot market in the United States. We don't sell at discounts. The only firm power that we sell....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, regardless of that. I haven't seen that report; I'd like to see it. I can assure the member that the spot market in the area in which we sell is much higher than the charges that we make for power to our own citizens. It brings in revenue sometimes. Last year was not a good year. We didn't sell much power at all. In fact, except for the last three months, I think we had no surplus power to sell. It's a fluctuating kind of thing, but we do make some revenue each year. That revenue is used to go into the general Hydro revenue pool and hopefully keep rates at some....

MR. PASSARELL: How much?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll get it for you. I haven't got it with me. I tried to get it tonight, but it was after 5. I'll get it for you tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing is with the power exports. We have only two firm contracts; one of them is right across from your constituency in Hyder, Alaska, and the other one is in Point Roberts. The rest we sell only on an interruptible basis, and I can assure the member that the rates are pretty darn good. So I'll get the actual rates for him tomorrow, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I just don't have them.

MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to comment first of all on the member for Atlin; I marvel at the expertise he's developed in the energy field. I'm also somewhat confused by his statements in that he constantly makes reference to our having public hearings and having studies done. Yet the rest of his presentation indicates that he doesn't want any information that might come out of that, unless it suits his purpose, because his mind is already made up. He has already decided against any of those projects. The one danger about asking questions or about public hearings is that the results may not necessarily coincide with the person's own views. And that is perhaps a warning to the member. I'd like to mention that the minister has had a lot of criticism and flak about lack of public hearings on pipelines and energy projects — northeast coal and so on. Let's hear what the NDP policy is. This is from Hansard, February 27, 1973, and the speaker is the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who was the Premier then. He states:

All right, I'm not going to tell you what the negotiations are. That would be irresponsible of any government — whether it was you or us, in the midst of negotiations — to start a public debate around the particulars of the negotiations. We've been elected to govern, and in instances like this it's obvious that the government must assume the responsibility for making the decisions.

The Premier of that time goes on:

The question of a public hearing on the economics is absurd, and the member knows it. No government anywhere in Canada, of any provincial jurisdiction or any federal jurisdiction, takes a basic matter of economic policy to public hearings.

[ Page 5568 ]

It goes on.

The member's suggestion that we take specifics to a public hearing is absurd, in my opinion. It would be a dereliction of the responsibility that we have as a government to start throwing around figures while we are in the midst of negotiations on a deal that may or may not go through.

Yet we've heard a great deal about how we are covering up, that this government is not releasing any information and so on.

I want to make another brief reference to the philosophy of that socialist party. In the federal-provincial conference of first ministers in April 1975 the then Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition — you can see why he is now Leader of the Opposition instead of Premier — suggested: "In calling for public control over Canada's energy resources, I have said since November 1973 that British Columbia is prepared to share all the oil and natural gas rights granted to us by the constitution if the government of Canada will put under public ownership all of the oil and gas in this country." You've heard that one before. I realize that.

Earlier today the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was asking if there was a plan for the socialists to take over the mining industry. Again I quote the present Leader of the Opposition. In the Province of October 20, 1976 — approximately a year after that government was defeated as a result of their policies.... Haven't we heard the statement here that if you don't learn from history, etc...? Let's hear what the member said ten months after he was defeated. "So I see doom and gloom, based on what is happening in Victoria. It's a very hard message, but it's a reality." It goes on.

"There can be no absolutes of either the left or the right in approaching economic problems. His own view is that B.C. has a mixed economy and it is wrong for a government to apply the private-enterprise approach to everything. Barrett said he sees the renewable resource field, forestry and tourism as the economic base for the future, with government stimulation in both fields in cooperation with private enterprise."

That's a very noble statement. Let's hear what he says further:

"'Foreign investment doesn't upset me in these fields.' His only concern is that foreign capital show some social and moral responsibility." Then he concludes with: "In the nonrenewable resource fields of oil, natural gas and mining, Barrett said he sees the need for absolutes. 'All should be publicly owned with a proper return to the people.' " Then we wonder why the mining industry is concerned about socialism taking over. Yet members of the opposition try to maintain that they are not interested in taking over mining, that mining need not be concerned.

I think it's a fairly clear indication that they've already indicated they support the federal policy of taking over and nationalizing the oil and gas industry, and certainly giving it away to Ottawa, as the Leader of the Opposition said at the B.C. federation convention earlier this year. The Barrett formula is 45 percent to the federal government, 45 percent to the provincial government and 10 percent to the industry. You'd attract an awful lot of industries with that kind of generosity, wouldn't you?

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: Then I'd have to look at you, Mr. Member. That would sicken me and I couldn't go on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, parliamentary language is always a good feature of debate.

MR. BRUMMET: Earlier we heard the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) accusing this government of forecasting doom and gloom, and we have in that same article of the Province of October 20, 1976, where the present Leader of the Opposition was certainly getting going talking about the Socreds being locked into deficits for their first term of administration at least. The way they were spending money when they were in power I think the NDP did everything they possibly could to lock this government into deficits. But he goes on: "...and won't be able to initiate one single new program, because they have stifled the normal growth there should be in this mixed economy. We should be doing things to stimulate our own economy to buffer the world situation." That was in October or November.

In a later article, the Leader of the Opposition said: "One year ago you were being told that the NDP had ruined the economy, but the province was moving along in spite of national recession at that time." Now he is referring to late 1975. The province was moving along, yet we were going into debt and had to cut programs. He goes on: "If people think 1976 was bad, wait until 1977." They were saying everything is right in the rose garden. I think history will record that in 1977 and 1978 and 1979 and 1980 the economy of this province improved constantly. I think it's well known — talk about doom and gloom — that in the Halifax speech of the notorious Leader of the Opposition in December 1976 he said: "Things are horrible in British Columbia. The economy is in bad shape, and I'm loving every minute of it." So we have a real indication of the doom and gloom that that member was pushing in this province.

I'd like to switch briefly to what has happened in the oil and gas industry. There is no end to the articles in the newspapers. Any newspaper in the country you pick up has an article about what the national energy policy has done for the oil and gas industry in British Columbia. Of course, it's interesting to note that that socialist opposition fully supports the national energy policy. As their leader says, the only thing wrong with it is that it's not going far enough or fast enough. Yet in the northeastern part of the province and in Alberta the industry is shutting down. It's not hurting the oil companies, because they're going down to the United States and other places and making more money than they have here; it is hurting the people in my area who depend on the jobs there. Those are the ones who are being hurt, and those socialists have the gall to say that they are interested in helping and supporting people. They talk jobs, and say that they're interested in helping them, but what happens in reality is that industries that create jobs are forced out of this province. We have heard considerably about how the production was up during the NDP years. Prices went up and production went up. Wells that are drilled do not stop producing just because there is a socialist government in power. They have to produce. They've got an investment that they have to try and realize. That is correct. They do not stop producing and neither do mines that have been opened and are operating. They go on. What about the development or the continuity? It has been stated here that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation was a great and wonderful innovation of the NDP. Yet the records will show that by the end of their term, they were already running short of gas to slip through those lines to have that company operate. It was certainly

[ Page 5569 ]

looking bleak for the future. With the number of wells that weren't being drilled, that B.C. Petroleum Corporation wouldn't have had any gas left to sell. That's happening again.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: I'll tell you, under socialism there were a lot of wells that didn't get drilled. Under federal socialism, with the NDP's support, a lot of wells are not being drilled once again. Do you want some figures? They connect production at the top only when it suits them. They talk only about production. They don't talk about the drilling and exploration program. Somehow or other they cannot seem to associate what goes on.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will continue uninterrupted.

MR. BRUMMET: That would be a great deal to expect, Mr. Chairman, but anyway, I'll hope.

The socialists can never seem to associate one stage with another. Production is dependent on getting and drilling wells; that is dependent on finding wells; and that is dependent on exploration programs, which is dependent on seismic and so on down the line. Just to give you an indication of what government policies can do — I realize this is a federal policy — in the first three months of 1980 — the first three sales — the total oil and gas.lease sales in northeastern British Columbia totalled $101.5 million. In 1981 it was down to 22.7. That's quite a difference. That's about one-fifth of the leases that there were in 1980. I can certainly make the connection, and the people in my part of the country make the connection that that will result in less drilling later on.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: I realize that in this chamber and from this opposition we have a considerable effort to distract, make light and poke levity at anyone who is trying to say something.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: Yes, it goes on — the facts are unimportant.

Just before I conclude I'd like to quote an article from the Vancouver Sun.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: I think I was trying to make the point — perhaps not as articulately as many members on that side who have had the practice, but probably more sincerely than many of them — that government policies do affect what happens to the economy, to jobs, to revenues and to the people in a province or country. That is the point that I'm trying to make. I'd like to refer to an article in the Vancouver Sun for April 25, which says: "The Social Credit Party can take no credit for the trees or the minerals or the natural gas. The voters know it. I think the average British Columbia voter recognizes that this would be a wealthy province even if Donald Duck were the Premier." I would like to suggest that from 1972 to 1975 Donald Duck was the Premier in this province and the economy went to ruin.

With that, I would like to move that 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.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

ALLEGATION OF ALASKAN
COMMITMENT TO RAILWAY PROJECT

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. It is with dismay and sorrow that I have to inform this House of a statement of the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) printed in the March 1981 Cassiar Courier, which has created embarrassment for our province and our neighbour to the north, Governor Jay Hammond of Alaska. I quote from the front of the report: "MLA Report Passarell." It goes on: "As is well known around here, during the election campaign Dave Barrett met with Governor Hammond of Alaska in 1979. These people discussed the railroad extension, and Governor Hammond agreed to contribute $2 billion towards the extension through the Yukon into Alaska." The report goes on to say other things which I may take issue with later, Mr. Speaker. but this is the part that I quote now.

I also now read from a Telex I received this afternoon from Governor Jay Hammond of Alaska.

Hon. Bill Bennett,
Premier of British Columbia.
Province of British Columbia.
Parliament Buildings.
Victoria

I noted with dismay an item in the March issue of the Cassiar Courier asserting that I had met with David Barrett and agreed to contribute $2 billion towards the extension of the railroad through the Yukon into Alaska. This is not only totally false, but apparently an attempt to propel my office into the B.C. political arena in a most embarrassing manner. Not only have I never stated I would commit a single dollar to the railroad extension, I could not do so if I chose without legislative approval.

During the many cordial discussions I have had with you on this matter, we have discussed the possibility of extending the railroad, and Alaska is currently studying the potential for rail extension in various parts of Alaska. Until such studies indicate to the contrary, it is my continued assumption, as it was in 1979, that the extension of the railroad to connect with the Canadian system exceeded both financial capability and economic prudence insofar as both the state of Alaska and British Columbia were concerned. I would appreciate anything you could do to clarify and set the record straight.

Sincerely,
J.S. Hammond
Alaska State Governor

In view of the serious effect this report of the member for Atlin may have on our international neighbours to the north, with whom we have enjoyed and wish to continue to enjoy the best relations, on behalf of the people of British Columbia I feel I must apologize to Governor Hammond. Whatever may

[ Page 5570 ]

have motivated the member for Atlin to print such a damaging statement is not for me to say. However, it is clear to me that the member and the Leader of the Opposition should tender their apologies and both print a public retraction forthwith. Common decency and continued good international relations with our American neighbours demands no less.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Premier making his ministerial statement about the words that were printed in the paper from Cassiar, I have no idea of the background, at this point, and indeed whether those words were printed. I will take the Premier's word for it, of course. I think it's also easy to understand that the time was 1979. The member for Atlin was not a member of this House at that time....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Lookit, just shut up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The statement was heard in silence. Let's hear the reply in silence.

MR. LEA: Obviously there was a meeting in 1979; I happened to be there. The meeting was not with Governor Hammond; that's true. It was when the Leader of the Opposition addressed the joint session of both Houses of the State Legislature. We did not, nor did the Leader of the Opposition, meet with Governor Hammond. But I think I would be remiss if I didn't point out that when reading that the Premier, in a very subtle way, tried to leave the impression with this House, and therefore the people of this province, that the Leader of the Opposition had said that he had met with Governor Hammond. That is the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier tried to leave with this House.

I believe that the mistake made by the member for Atlin if indeed what the Premier says is true would be very, very slight in terms of the people of this province being ashamed or having to apologize. The Premier comes in here knowing full well that the Leader of the Opposition made no statement that he met with Governor Hammond, but he definitely tried to leave the impression with this House that the Leader of the Opposition in some way endorsed what was in the Cassiar paper or, indeed, was quoted by the Cassiar paper. I think it's deplorable that the Premier would take something that he was on high ground with and then sink into the mud in trying to bring the Leader of the Opposition into something that never happened. I think the people of this province will again see that the Premier of this province is not capable of statesmanship.

MR. LAUK: I would ask Mr. Speaker to take under review something that I cannot find decided in any of our journals. Perhaps it is mentioned in some of the weighty tomes considered by the Table from time to time. It is the use of a ministerial statement for a blatant political attack rather than for an announcement of policy on behalf of government. It is my impression that it should be discouraged by the House. I would submit to Your Honour that the abuse of the very high privilege of ministerial statement to take your place out of order of debate, and not debating any resolution, issue or bill, is to be treated with great dismay by the House, and I urge upon you, sir, with great dismay by the Chair. I'd ask Mr. Speaker to take that into consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we entertain the motion of adjournment, members may well wish to review pages 45, 46 and 47 in the most recent text just published, which is called Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia and which has been distributed to all members. Those particular pages address the subject to which the member has referred.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.