[ Page 2263 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

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

Routine proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading — 2263

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce estimates On vote 125.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2263

Mr. Chabot — 2265

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2269

Mr. Chabot — 2272

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2272

Mr. Gibson — 2272

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2276

Mr. Gardom — 2279

Mr. Steves — 2280

Mr. Bennett — 2283

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2285

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2289

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2289

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, a number of times during the session, in the last few days, questions have been raised regarding the possibility of a strike by the B.C. Registered Nurses Association.

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

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: I felt the House would be interested in knowing that an agreement was signed this morning in my office appointing an Industrial Inquiry Commission to investigate into the dispute between the Registered Nurses Association and the Hospitals Association. At that time I made a very, very strong recommendation to the parties that the findings of the inquiry commission be accepted as binding. I think it's a credit to the responsibility of both groups that they have, in fact, agreed to accept as binding the award of the Industrial Inquiry Commission which will be in the person of Mr. Clive McKee.

I think the House should acknowledge the responsibility of people involved in collective bargaining in a very, very difficult and delicate industry. I think it's a credit to their responsibility and to the success of the collective bargaining system that we have an agreement to resolve the dispute in this fashion.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would like to draw to the Members' attention the presence in the galleries this morning of students from Reynolds Senior Secondary School in Saanich, accompanied by Mrs. Plecas, Mrs. Hadfield and Mrs. Walton. Would the House welcome them please?

Introduction of bills.

RIDING TRAILS DESIGNATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 107, Riding Trails Designation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to table a document entitled "Submission by Canada, regarding the Skagit Valley, to the Federal Power Commission," dated March 15, 1974.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this document, which has recently come to my attention, will be of value in regard to the reply to the question of the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) indicating that the provincial government would be giving a different submission to the Federal Power Commission. I think this document should be available for all Members of the House.

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

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Liden from the Special Committee on Assessment Procedures presented the committee's first report which was taken as read and received.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE

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

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Thank you for your kind support. I expect the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who is the industrial development critic of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, will stand up and suggest this vote be passed without any further debate, after my opening comments, as a tremendous vote of confidence.

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

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

I have a brief three-hour opening address, Mr. Chairman; I've tried to condense it. I have made an attempt since my appointment to expand the staff in the direction of the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. As it was before,

[ Page 2264 ]

as most of you know, it was a department that dealt mainly with economic statistics, and had a small but hard-working little group of people doing that job.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: As I recall, some years ago the then First Member for Vancouver Centre, Herb Capozzi, once threw an expletive across to the then Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, Waldo Skillings. He said, "Waldo, get off your fat stats."

Well, I took him seriously when I was appointed and we've expanded the budget modestly — we don't need to spend money unless it's absolutely necessary — a modest increase in budget to expand the staff to include not only those people who will gather and disseminate statistics about the economy of this dynamic and progressive province but also to give the government and the business community a clearer direction of where the economy might go — more information in terms of economic planning, not only from a local point of view and a statistical point of view but from the point of view of overseas trade, monetary financial analysis, economic planning for regional areas, relation to manpower and cooperation with other departments of government.

There's a tremendous opportunity for this government to carry on that kind of role — not just a monitoring role, but a more positive, active role. From statistics to action, static to active is what I've attempted to do in the past few months that I've been in office in this portfolio.

The expanded operations include an expanded Vancouver office, Mr. Chairman. We're there providing assistance to the business community in the lower mainland and elsewhere. This Vancouver office is primarily responsible, through our operations side of the department, for trade missions, community business contacts, information, preliminary analysis of marketing and management of various business operations that may come to us for such assistance.

The British Columbia Development Corporation has a board of directors and a general manager and is now hiring staff. It soon will conduct, I'm instructed by the board, a programme of industrial land banking. Again, it's modest, not extensive, but key to the regional areas of this province, assisting the municipalities and regional districts in their industrial land problems towards development of industry in those areas.

It is a policy of this government to decentralize as much as is democratically and humanly possible industrial development in this province to the regional areas. The Development Corporation must be looked upon, Mr. Chairman, with some degree of caution. We can't look upon the Development Corporation as being the answer to all small business worries and all the worries of regional areas.

I don't know whether all of you got my reading list. I think the Second Member for West Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) probably got my reading list. On my reading list were several books, including Forced Growth by Phillip Mathias. That's a good book for you to read so that you can understand the problems the Development Corporation might have in the next two or three years, and how we in British Columbia have an opportunity to change the direction of development corporations as they have shown themselves across the country. I know you're interested in a rational examination of this problem.

The new department, Mr. Chairman, as I have said, will be responsive to changing local, national and world conditions. We are becoming more responsive and aware of the western region — the three western provinces other than British Columbia. The four provinces together are making inroads in the past several months that are quite exciting.

Deputy Ministers and Ministers of trade and industry for the four western provinces are meeting and discussing what we all have in common, what our dissimilarities are in terms of what raw materials resources we have, in what ways we can cooperate in terms of the development of those resources and, more importantly, the development of an industrial base for western Canada.

As I said in my speech in the budget debate, which all of you, I know, reread last night before this morning, that really the 1980s and the 1970s and the rest of this century belong to western Canada. The tremendous opportunity to economic development is with these provinces. The key, really, is the Pacific Rim and therefore British Columbia. We cannot succeed on our own particularly. We can do a good job; we can grow. But the real opportunity and the real challenge is cooperation between the four western provinces.

The other day one of the Hon. Members in the opposition (Mr. Chabot) questioned me on a steel plant and the expansion of steel production in Saskatchewan. We have some criticisms of the way that's going, but I assure you again that we should congratulate Saskatchewan and the western provinces for their bold moves and the federal government for its assistance to them in developing this kind of an industry. It can only assist British Columbia and can only help us. Perhaps we can elaborate on that kind of discussion a little later on.

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

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

[ Page 2265 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't play rugby, but I will be there, as will the Premier and our staffs and a steel committee made up of a group of people that were carefully chosen both from in government and from outside of it to study the possibilities of steel production in this province. When we go to Japan we will be sitting down with many very important Japanese executives of various trading companies and steel companies in that country.

Over the past several months we've had many very favourable proposals from that country as well as others with respect to steel production. The question remains: which would be the most favourable to us in terms of the environment, in terms of the amount of jobs it would produce and wealth that would be produced in this province? We will go there with that in mind, and we will come back, hopefully, with a picture that will enable the government to make a decision about the direction of steel production in this province.

The interest of the department is also in the regional areas, as I've said, and I wish to stress only that the three areas that are a target for us are the northwest, the northeast — the Peace River-Liard region, and the Kootenays. In these areas we will try to bring about industrial development and decentralize the lower mainland concentration of industry. Perhaps other departments of government will try to make those areas more attractive for men and women and their families to live in those regions and to work in those jobs.

We will always have as our watchword growth, but not growth for growth's sake. We've repeated that. My hon. colleague is thumping his desk softly. He's not quite convinced; he's suspicious of our moves. It must be guided growth that will benefit all the people of British Columbia.

With these thrusts and with these growths as I've described them in the budget for 1974, it represents, I'll admit, a modest step forward, but I'd be less than fair if I didn't indicate that we can in all likelihood look forward to other changes soon. As these directions and thrusts that I've described become more apparent, the requirements may become more apparent as well from this House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, we have a new department here which we are discussing — the department of economic development and economic diplomacy. We have a new Minister and a new Deputy Minister. I'm certainly happy that the Minister stood in his place this morning and told us some of the directions he's going in, which appear to be in a circle. He told us about the modest increase in staff and modest increase in his budget. He gave us a bunch of philosophical jargon about his department. He talked about the opportunities for action but he failed to tell us what positive action he proposes to take in this department.

He did mention industrial land banking. He talked about the forthcoming trip to Japan. One Member interjected while he was speaking that he was going there to play rugby, but I know that the Minister's going there in an attempt to attract a steel industry for British Columbia. If he does find some spare moments he would qualify, I'm sure, for the scrum half on the rugby team.

I'm not going to speak all morning, Mr. Chairman, even though I could on this department. I'll give it to the Minister in small chunks.

First, we find the Minister said that there has been a modest increase in his staff. Staff has increased from 53 last year to 106 this year — exact doubling of staff. The Minister considers that to be a "modest increase."

He talks about initial staff as well. Oh, you're so modest, Mr. Minister. He talks about the modesty of his budget as well, a budget that increased from $2,168,000 to $4,332,000, an exact doubling of the budget. The Minister calls it a modest increase. It's not modest; it's not modest at all when you double a budget. However, we'll expect some action from your department in view of the dollars being injected into your estimates this year.

I want to discuss the first order-in-council very briefly that was presented by the Minister. It shocked me and it shocked a lot of British Columbians as well. It said:

"Whereas the Victoria offices of the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce presently located in the Douglas Building are being moved to new premises;

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

"And whereas this additional expenditure was not foreseen or provided for by the Legislature and is urgently and immediately required for the public good;

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

"And whereas the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce reports that the necessity for the expenditure is urgent, a special warrant be prepared to be signed by the Lieutenant-Governor for the issuance from Consolidated Revenue Fund of the sum of $86,000 for the above purpose."

I'm rather surprised that a Minister of Finance of British Columbia would sign such an order-in-council, an order-in-council which is not specific and which should be specific.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

[ Page 2266 ]

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering what they bought with the $86,000 for the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce's office. There's a lot of latitude in that order-in-council. Did you buy an 8-ft. desk that will sleep three people?

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

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

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

MR. CHABOT: Were there Tiffany lamps purchased with this kind of money? There is concern out there that this is an extravagant amount of money to vote for a Minister's office. I think you should this morning tell the people of British Columbia that you didn't use all this money to furnish your office with exotic rugs and lamps and desks.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: The department we're talking about really is a central department to government. It's a department which should be pivot around which government direction in the economic sector revolves. It is a department which should have flexibility, a department which should display initiative, and a department which should foresee opportunities to increase trade and to increase employment opportunities through the use of our products at home.

I think the government has had ample opportunity to establish its guidelines and its objectives. They've been in office now for 19 months. The new Minister said, when he took office in June, that there is going to be a 6-month reorganization of his department. He tells us now that the reorganization is going to continue. Is that reorganization going to continue ad infinitum? We heard the same story from the former Minister, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), in which he stated in his annual report the fact that much of 1972 was devoted to a critical self-evaluation of the department. When he spoke about his department in the spring session last year he talked about the reorganization taking place.

Have we been doing nothing else in this department but reorganization? I think the department should be reorganized as quickly as possible and get down to the business of looking after the well-being of the economy of this province.

Some of the actions of the government have certainly affected the ability of industry in this province to attract investment capital, be it in the mining field, in the timber industry or in the industrial sector.

I received a letter from an individual who is in the selling of securities in Toronto. He expressed his concern about investments in British Columbia. I think it is a very timely letter and one which the Minister should hear.

"With the current vigorous articles in the newspapers and other publications concerning the British Columbia mining legislation, I hope the enclosed photostat copies of articles from a recent edition of The Northern Miner will be of interest to you.

"In my position as director of security sales to the institutional field in a Toronto-based investment firm, I find that lately it is virtually impossible to sell British Columbia mining company stocks to any of the large insurance companies, trust companies, mutual or managed pension funds here in the east.

"I feel this decidedly negative attitude will have a bad effect on any financing the province may wish to do in the near or long term. This unhappy situation will no doubt persist until such time as the government is able to extend more positive encouragement to the mining industry."

This is in a nutshell what the investment world thinks of investments in British Columbia. It is a sad commentary indeed to see these kind of statements being made by investment firms in other parts of this nation and in other parts of this world. If you are going to establish an industrial complex, be it in the primary field or in the secondary field, in most instances you must attract investment capital. I want to assure you that with the directions that have been displayed by this government, it is going to be difficult indeed to attract investment capital in British Columbia.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that there is a bill on the order paper, Bill 31, dealing with mineral royalties. If he's beginning to move in this direction I would caution him….

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the profit-earning ratio of mining stocks in British Columbia, which has absolutely nothing to do with royalties.

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

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

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

[ Page 2267 ]

it's so low in relation to its profit.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: The reason the stock position of the mining industry today is such is because of the fear this government has generated in the investment world. There'll be a spin-off, and that spin-off is there not only from the mining industry but to other industries as well.

What kind of growth have you seen in the primary industry of forestry for instance? There's been absolutely nothing; no action whatsoever outside of small expansion programmes. Nothing of any major substance has taken place in British Columbia in the forest industry in the last 19 months.

I think you have a responsibility in your portfolio to convince your colleagues to stop making these irresponsible statements which hurt not only your ability to function, Mr. Minister, but the economy and the well-being of this province and of the people of this province.

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

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

MR. CHABOT: Well, when I was 15 and 16 I used to subscribe to this magazine put out by the department of trade and industry of the federal government. I found it most educational and most informative as to what took place in the world, the kind of products that were produced in other parts of the world, the kind of trade that took place, the kind of negotiations that took place between the various countries.

One of the things that impressed me about this magazine that came out semi-monthly was the tremendous network of contacts the federal government had established around the world with its trade commissions. I think they've been there for many, many years — an excellent opportunity for cooperation between the national government and the provincial government, an excellent opportunity for any province in this country to get a better understanding of the economic and cultural affairs of practically any country in the world. I'm sure the Minister could readily establish the potential of consumption of products manufactured in British Columbia in another country. I am wondering whether the Minister has made any contacts with the federal government in connection with their various trade commissioners around the world, whether the Minister proposes to have any joint missions in any part of the world and, if so, what part of the world. What kind of products are we talking about when we're travelling with these joint trade missions?

I notice the export trade from British Columbia will increase dramatically this year. The Minister might call it economic diplomacy. I notice from correspondence I'm getting on my desk that we are exporting and will be exporting many miners from British Columbia, many mining engineers, mining consultants and geologists. We are exporting these people to regions that have a more favourable economic climate than exists in this province. What we're really doing is exporting our technological skill. I think it's a sad situation to see us lose some of the most skilled workers in the mining industry anywhere in the world. I think we should redirect our efforts in this regard to ensure that these people who contributed so much to make the mining industry in British Columbia one of the most viable in the world should have an opportunity to continue to use their skills within the boundaries of this province.

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

The Minister should direct his efforts towards the exporting of our goods, not necessarily in the raw state but in the finished-product state. He should direct his efforts towards attracting investment capital to British Columbia to create secondary industry to manufacture our primary industries. I want to know what action the Minister has taken in this connection with the creation of employment opportunities for people in British Columbia and for people who want to come and enjoy British Columbia.

The Minister has done something. Just a few moments ago I accused him of having done nothing, but he has done one thing: he has initiated an industrial park on Tilbury Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

MR. CHABOT: Not too many months ago this government zoned many little people in this province into one designation relative to land. Locked in. No longer could they sell their land for other than farming purposes. Yet we see what's happening by directives and actions of this Minister at Tilbury Island.

I'm surprised the Minister would make some of the statements he has made regarding Tilbury Island and the Land Commission when he says the Land Commission was not established to protect all farmland. Are you suggesting that by government whim, by government decision, farmland can be used for other than farming purposes? Are you going to give that same right to others than the government in this

[ Page 2268 ]

province?

I think it's terrible that you would take 726 acres of prime agricultural land that cannot be compared as far as soil structure is concerned with any other agricultural land in British Columbia and make it into an industrial park. Some of the key questions regarding your industrial park, Mr. Minister, are: where is the prior planning in the establishment of this park? Where is the prior consultation with the community? Do you consider this failure to plan, this failure to consult, economic diplomacy? Did you really think this out before you made your decision or is it just an idea picked out of the sky?

It's bad enough to destroy 726 acres of prime agricultural land, but what about the lands you'll destroy by providing access to this industrial site? Certainly there must be other suitable sites you could have picked without using 726 acres of prime agricultural land. There have been many questions put by organizations in British Columbia on the use of this farmland. I'll read just a few of them.

Prior to that: when there was development at Squamish, the Premier said, "Barrett says 'Environment Top Issue in Squamish Plans.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. CHABOT: Why isn't it a top issue at Tilbury Island? Why isn't it a prime issue there? Is it because it was initiated by you, Mr. Minister, rather than by the Premier? Did the Premier say it was a top environmental issue there because he felt he was in hot water? Maybe you need more pressure on you, Mr. Minister, to get you to take the environment into consideration in your industrial development complex.

Some of the questions put to the Minister which remain to this very day unanswered are: has a study been made of the need for such an industrial park port development? Is it available to the public? Has there been an inventory of the B.C. coastline to determine where such a port could be situated with the least environmental disruption? If so, is such inventory available to the public?

Has there been an investigation of the claim by six Delta farmers that their operation will no longer be viable if they can no longer lease the area planned by your government for an industrial park?

Has there been a study to determine the truth of the claim that drainage in adjacent areas would be seriously disrupted if this 726 acres is loaded with sand in preparation for an industrial development? Who has determined the dredging in this area will not be damaging to fish runs?

Were alternate sites for an industrial port development considered? Has there been an assessment of the impact on the Fraser estuary of this proposed industrial port development in relation to a whole series of concerns?

Those are very current concerns to which the Minister should apply himself. The Minister should inform us this morning whether he has some plans, whether he has examined alternate sites and whether he is going to give people an opportunity to express their concerns on the matter of environment, on the matter of the advisability of establishing this industrial park at Tilbury Island.

The Minister talks about "jiggling", but "jiggling" when it's convenient for the government. No one else can get involved in what I consider to be the destruction of prime agricultural lands. The last change in designation to the lower mainland regional plan was made in 1968. There were 19 requests made from 1966 to the present day and not one of those requests were made by the provincial government.

We've heard a lot about organization of your department. But the establishment of secondary industry is not created by organizing your department.

You can have all the people you want in your department. It does not generate jobs unless you assign these people to specific tasks in attracting capital, in attracting construction of projects. We have the expertise here, Mr. Member, but what we need is secondary industry. You can't generate it by going around in a circle in your department and establishing bureaucracy — by hiring more people.

You've got to tell us what kinds of specific jobs you're giving these people that will create jobs in British Columbia through the export of our raw materials and through the processing of our raw materials. You've got to change your attitude towards industry. You can't constantly attack industry as you have in the last 18 months and expect them to come with open arms to create employment opportunities in British Columbia.

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

MR. CHABOT: There are more opportunities for people to invest in British Columbia at the present time than there ever has been before, but you people are destroying the confidence of those people who have dollars to invest in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You can buy all the ads you want in publications in British Columbia and other areas, but that won't bring investment capital to British Columbia. You must stop these harangues; you must stop these constant attacks...

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking to yourself?

[ Page 2269 ]

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

Now I want to ask a few more questions. First of all, I want to thank the Minister for making the general development agreement available in the House. It's most unfortunate that we don't have his December 31, 1973, annual report. It's rather difficult to examine a report of December 31, 1972, and scrutinize the actions of the Minister. Probably if I was the Minister I wouldn't want to table his annual report either prior to the estimates. But it is unfortunate that he didn't take the initiative to table the report prior to his estimates.

Now looking at the DREE arrangement which the Minister talks about — and I haven't had a chance to closely study it, but I've examined it — it appears to be an overall, general overview of development: possible development for the Kootenays, the northwest and the northeast part of British Columbia. There's nothing specific in this agreement. You must come to some subsidiary agreements before anything specific can take place. There must be dollars voted in this Legislature and voted in the House of Commons in Ottawa for some of these specific proposals.

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

Now can you tell me, Mr. Minister, whether it's possible for anyone wanting to establish an industry in British Columbia in any of these areas, to secure dollars from the national government prior to a subsidiary agreement being reached? Because if it's going to take as long — and I'm sure it will — to sign a subsidiary agreement as it has to sign the general agreement of principle, well, industry is going to move somewhere else where the climate is more favourable — probably to Alberta where they have ample dollars available now and where they'll willingly, I'm sure, make those dollars available in attracting secondary industry.

I think it's very important that we find out now just whether dollars are available prior to the signing of any of these subsidiary agreements. I have many other questions I would like to pose but, in my usual fair manner, I will allow an opportunity for other Members to have a say too.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's always a treat to hear the Member for Columbia River, Mr. Chairman, calling on us to provide more jobs…that country boy from Columbia River. The issue of the session, Mr. Chairman, is strawberry tomatoes.

No, I always like poking fun at the Hon. Member. He's sort of a classic in this House and I don't say that without some degree of affection. The Hon. Member raised a number of questions, and I'll answer them quickly to allow other Members to speak. I've written them down in point form.

The special warrant for $86,000 for furniture for the department was when the department was in the process of doing two things: expanding from I think it was 30 employees to about 51 and when space was needed in the Douglas Building and we had to go downtown. Okay, so there are two things there: we needed expanded space in any event, and the increased population of the department was apparent. So we had to rent space downtown.

There was no furniture down there, so we had to get a special warrant to provide the furniture. Now that vote was for the department itself, not the Ministerial office, as has been suggested by others who are less responsible with their comments in this House. There was $86,000 granted to the department to cover the cost of desks, chairs, screens, cabinets, library and storage shelving, conference room table and chairs, et cetera, for the department's new premises. It was a general warrant to provide for all overall office expenses for an entire department, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they use before?

HON. MR. LAUK: Now there was another point raised. I can't comment on the Member's reference to the mining legislation, Mr. Chairman, but he did say that the market has never been lower, that we're scaring off investment capital. I think that I should apprise the Hon. Member of some facts of which he should have been aware for some time now.

Since this government took office, since Bill 42 and all the 100-odd or more bills that were passed last year, bills that the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and the Hon. Member for Columbia River said would scare away capital investment within a year — that there was going to be a Cadillac exodus from the province — in that year, Mr. Chairman, capital investment jumped 103 per cent, between 1972 and 1973, to over $4 billion.

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

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

MR. CHABOT: A 103 per cent increase?

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

MR. CHABOT: No way. No way!

HON. MR. LAUK: Now the gross provincial product was $13.8 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion or 16 per cent over 1972. Even taking the price index increase of 10 per cent, that's the highest in history, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 2270 ]

MR. CHABOT: Inflation.

HON. MR. LAUK: Taking the price index increase into consideration, Mr. Member — and even taking 10 per cent of that 16 per cent — that's the highest increase in history.

MR. CHABOT: Generated by world markets.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know, people say "humbug" and they don't have any faith in their province, Mr. Chairman. They always sit over there and make carping criticism against the dynamic and progressive policies of this government. That's all we've been hearing from the opposition. We can't do anything for the opposition. They are carping critics. They are against the people of this province, and they're against the province itself.

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, answer the question.

HON. MR. LAUK: The trade missions which the Hon. Member asked about — well, we've been sending trade missions, or haven't you been reading the newspapers. We've been sending trade missions all over the world — one to Malaysia, one to Australia, and we're going to be sending one to Europe soon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Maybe one to Ottawa.

HON. MR. LAUK: We had the Pacific Sawmill Exhibition. It was initiated by the Hon. Attorney-General when he was my predecessor, a brilliant move on his part — very successful for sawmilling equipment in this province.

Let me read to you a little report I got — just from one trade mission that I've sent over in the past paltry few months I've been in office; one example of what a trade mission has done.

MR. CHABOT: Where did you go?

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't go anywhere on these trade missions; they are the business community and for only one or two members of my staff which lead the trade mission, Mr. Member. I'm not interested in travelling except for specific, hard negotiations and special purposes.

Now, these trade missions — I just picked one out of the bundle at random, Mr. Chairman — the one to Australia. This was a group, I think, of seven or eight cabinet-makers of British Columbia. We didn't know we had cabinet-makers here; I'll bet you didn't know that. They're known around the world as being quality cabinet-makers.

Here's the report after less than a week of that trade mission being in Australia — it's back now. Crestwood kitchen cabinets has signed an agreement valued at $7.5 million over the next five years for the assembly in Australia of cabinets shipped and manufactured out of Richmond. This agreement only covers the market in Sydney, Australia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What country is that?

HON. MR. LAUK: Australia.

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

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

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

HON. MR. LAUK: And if the Australian company is able to sell nationally, Mr. Chairman, the value of the contract will be increased substantially.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: No. 2. Monocrest will be returning to Australia within the next two weeks to sign an agreement for the national sale of their product, valued at $1.6 million a year for the next five years.

International Cabinets is awaiting a letter of intent from an Australian marketing organization that will cover an annual order valued at $50,000 a year for that particular company. And that looks fairly clear.

Each of the other three companies that we took on the mission is shipping samples of its product to Australia for evaluation. The total cost to this department of that mission, a little under $10,000. That's a very good investment.

We've been sending trade missions. Where have you been? Read the press. And when we do send trade missions, I'm instructed and as I was aware, the federal trade commissioners are informed well in advance and they cooperate in the planning. I must

[ Page 2271 ]

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

The Hon. Member mentioned Tilbury Island. I don't know how often I've answered the same old questions which you say are unanswered. That seems to be a pattern and I'll continue to go and play the circle game with you if you like.

The cost of industrial land in the Province of British Columbia, especially in the lower mainland and Vancouver, is the highest in Canada. There's no question about that. The 726 acres…the 3,000 acres in the area of Tilbury has been zoned by the Delta municipality as industrial since 1966.

The Delta position, as of last week, is that they want 3,000 acres put into industrial development. I'm not going to comment on their approach, but they're behind the Tilbury development; don't say there's no consultation.

When we first started out there was a mayor of Delta, who is not the mayor today, Dougal Morrison. We discussed, generally, the outline of our programme in that area. Now, we can't make press conferences, Mr. Chairman, when we're going to buy land because you know there are some people out there who will raise their price. I know this will be a shock to you: some of them raise prices when they know the government's buying land, so we had to buy it on the QT. We didn't buy it at farm prices; we bought it at industrial land prices. And I'll stand behind that any day of the week. The average price was $10,000 an acre.

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

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I say to you, Mr. Chairman, as I said when I announced the Tilbury land assembly, this government is subject to the Land Commission, and I will subject the Tilbury land assembly to the approval or disapproval of the Land Commission. I have said that from the beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who owns the Land Commission?

HON. MR. LAUK: Let me explain to you that the industrial development in the Tilbury area is already there: there's a Dow Chemical refinery; there is manufacturing going on there; there are storage facilities there — all over the area where we have accumulated 726 acres. Now, go out and have a look before you talk.

The second thing is that some of it is good agricultural land, some of it isn't, in the 726 acres. What about the whole purpose of the Tilbury land assembly? The Hon. Member is forgetting about the people who live on the Burrard peninsula who are being strangled because of lack of living space. There is a way to relieve that kind of pressure on industrial land within the Burrard peninsula area, and that is by providing low-cost, reasonable rates for industrial land in the Delta area on a planned basis. That can be done; it is being done.

The federal government has the same approach and agrees entirely with our approach in this matter. In the Delta municipality the newly constituted council agrees entirely with industrial development in this particular area. I will not comment on the fact that they want 3,000 acres. The provincial government thinks it's satisfactory for the time being to have 726 or 800 acres in that area.

The Member mentioned jobs, secondary industry, more opportunity for investment. They're lining up, Mr. Chairman, they're lining up. It's just a question of who we let invest in this province and on what terms. There is no fright; there is no fear on their part. They are lining up at the door to put their money in this province because it seems that people in central Canada, in Japan, in Germany and in Britain have more faith in this province than you do, Mr. Member. They're going to invest their money here.

Interjections.

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

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

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

The Hon. Member asked about the annual report for the department. I apologize to the House for the delay. I really do think I should have had it here on time. I got the final draft....

Interjections.

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

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

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

[ Page 2272 ]

facts put into the annual report. I hope to file it before the end of this session — some time in August, before the end of this session.

Now, the general development agreement….

MR. CHABOT: Did you change the picture?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll just quickly answer that. Nobody's going to…. Now, the general development agreement, if you read schedule A, emphasizes the three regions that I've discussed in due course. We're already in the throes of negotiating specific subsidiary agreements with the federal government to provide money in those areas. That money may take the form of infra-structure, it may take the form of specific projects or industries, private and public or both. These things will become clear and announcements will be made in due course.

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

The reason for the delay in signing is that the federal government has logistical problems in arranging assigning time. They have much more difficult problems getting things through cabinet, it seems. They have agendas, and things are delayed and put off, and so on.

So they had their problems, and I am not particularly criticizing them. We were ready to sign in October of last year.

MR. CHABOT: Just one brief question regarding your development at Tilbury Island. I wonder if you could tell me whether there have been environmental studies to establish the impact that this kind of development will have on the general area. If there haven't been, will there be environmental studies?

HON. MR. LAUK: There are two things involved. We are providing an industrial park for light manufacturing and other kinds of what we would call pollution-free industry. The only thing that would pollute would be the toilet facilities in this kind of industry which we want to put there.

However, if we want to proceed later on in dredging in our area to build a port, which is a possible concept, these studies will have to be completed, and the terms of reference are being drafted for those. But until those are completed, Mr. Member, we won't proceed with any port. I want to make that clear. We want to make sure that the Fraser estuary is protected and intact. And that's part of our philosophy.

Now the second thing is that unfortunately the Fraser River Harbours Commission, which is out of our control, is going to be dredging there anyway. We have to check that out with the federal government. They have informed me that they have done extensive studies and they feel that it will not harm the estuary there. But discussions and investigations through my colleague's department, and so on, should be continuing. The dredging on that side of the river they are entitled to do in any event. We have to look carefully at that situation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I would like to start out by congratulating the Minister on his new Deputy, who is a distinguished public servant and who I know will add as much lustre to the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce as he has in his previous tasks.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express a lot of sympathy and concern for this Minister. He is in a very difficult position in this cabinet. He is almost the sole spokesman for the producers of this province, and that's a difficult position in this cabinet, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, I was going to go on to say that there are two other spokesmen for producers in that cabinet. I said he was almost the sole one, Mr. Minister; there are two others. There is the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and there is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour have been notably successful inside the cabinet in representing their clientele. The thrust of the government has been obviously sympathetic to the interests of those two Ministers. I hope that we can find some success over the coming year in the representations of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, because we haven't seen it very much to date.

We need a strong Minister there. We need a C.D. Lauk. Can a G.V. Lauk become a C.D. Lauk? I am keeping my fingers crossed over the next year, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

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

MR. GIBSON: The Minister asked for a rational debate and he gave us a few figures about what was happening in the province. He said the gross provincial product was up 16 per cent. That's nice but he didn't mention that not 6 per cent was inflation; 10 per cent of that was inflation in 1973 — a year-over-year, December-over-December increase of 9.6 per cent. And he didn't mention that 3.5 per cent of it was growth, because that's what British Columbia is growing every year in population terms.

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

[ Page 2273 ]

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

Then he gave a figure for capital investment, Mr. Chairman. He didn't break that down at all. In particular, he didn't say how much of that capital investment relates to the development of secondary industry in this province, which is the particular responsibility of his department, and the thing that we need to develop — a stable, long-term base in this province.

He did, in his remarks, mention one secondary industry. He found a furniture company that made some sales in Australia, and I am glad he is getting one or two nice letters like that. Most of the letters I'm getting run something like this: they say, "I am a small businessman and the government is putting me out of business."

HON. MR. LAUK: File them.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be happy to file them. Mr. Minister, I'll send you a lot of copies. A lot of them, of course, relate to one specific industry, but I will get to that in a little bit.

Now I hope that the Minister is going to make some policy statements in various areas as we get along here, because it is a lot easier to have the rational debate he is inviting if we know the position of the government.

For example, I would like to know the position of the government on resource product upgrading. It seems to me that the logical place to start in enhancing our secondary industrial position in British Columbia is to work with the things we already have, which are, in particular, the products of our forests and mines and, to some extent, of our oceans and fields.

The Minister was quoted the other day as saying that perhaps there should be more smelter assistance available than had been projected in one of the pieces of legislation, Bill 31, that we can't discuss at this point. I would suggest that there certainly should be. Studies that I have seen about the differential cost of smelting in British Columbia as compared to, say, the rate that the Japanese will give on smelting, is on the order of three or four cents a pound.

I would like to ask the Minister very specifically what he thinks of that differential, whether he thinks British Columbia should have a copper smelter and what specific action the government is prepared to take.

I will state my belief, Mr. Chairman. British Columbia should have a copper smelter. It is a disgrace that we are producing over 700 million pounds of copper annually and are shipping it out of this province for smelting elsewhere. We can have in this province an environmentally sound smelter that will provide thousands of jobs in British Columbia.

All it takes is a little government action and determination to give the little bit of extra encouragement that private enterprise needs to get on with that job.

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

I would like to ask him, too, about his view on foreign investment in British Columbia. He referred to investors from many parts of the world that he said were anxious to come to British Columbia. That's a good thing. I hope he will name some names and give us a list of people anxious and willing to come to British Columbia. But I had always thought that his party, Mr. Chairman, was one that looked askance at foreign investment and kind of thought it was tainted money and not exactly the kind of thing we wanted in Canada.

I hope you will outline to us his quite specific thoughts on foreign investment with some examples, I hope, and some guidelines. The federal government has published some legislation and guidelines on foreign investment. Does he agree with those federal government policies? Would he be more stringent in British Columbia, or would he be looser?

On another subject, I would ask the Minister if he will institute a programme of encouraging better business education in British Columbia. We have in British Columbia technical training in many fields which are excellent: in the professional fields, in much of the work out at the B.C. Institute of Technology, medical people, lawyers, and so on.

We have a certain amount of provision for training in administration and business education, but in my view it's insufficient. I think that the Minister could do a good deal for industrial development in this province, in the general field of business, if he made it possible to have more home-grown British Columbia talent in the senior levels of not just industry, but our government administration as well, because that takes the administrative talents of an equally high order as business.

I would like to get his views on the subject that has been elaborated so often and so eloquently by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). That is the possibility of making British Columbia the research and development capital of Canada. We have the natural advantages for that.

We have some great educational institutions; we have the kind of climate — here I speak of natural climate as distinct from political climate — that research people flock to and have done in other parts of the world, particularly in the United States. Studies of the science council and other groups have shown quite conclusively how research is the mainspring of industry. It's a social investment in the short run, but in the long term it has a very high payoff in terms of jobs and in terms of productivity. I

[ Page 2274 ]

would like the Minister to comment on that.

He has a B.C. Development Corporation now. Could the Minister spell out to this House the investment policy of this B.C. Development Corporation, just in a few paragraphs? What is going to be their general thrust — what degree of sophistication in production?

Is it going to go after, is it going to concentrate in the primary sector? Is it going to concentrate on secondary manufacturing? Is it going to concentrate on the service sector? How much control does the Minister plan to exercise over the B.C. Development Corporation? Is he going to audit each of their major investments? How much independence is he going to give that group?

Mr. Chairman, there was an interesting article in the newspaper a little while ago — dateline Saskatoon. I think this was a conference the Premier was back at and I think the Minister was along with him.

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

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says he was along with the Minister, but the Premier was the spokesman on the occasion, nonetheless. Perhaps the Minister gave him leave for that.

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

MR. GIBSON: The article says:

"The four western provinces took a major step towards their alliance Thursday by announcing they will try to form a common industrial development strategy. The decision to attempt to stop, in the words of Premier Dave Barrett, 'mindless competition for the same investment dollar' may turn out to be the most important economic decision made in the west in recent times."

Well, it certainly turned out to be one of the most important economic decisions for Saskatchewan. There's no doubt about that. Saskatchewan has a magnificent steel mill on the way. Was that the one that was planned for British Columbia, Mr. Chairman? Why are they going to Japan? Do they plan two steel mills in the west?

What are his thoughts on that steel mill, Mr. Chairman? Is there room for an extra steel mill here in British Columbia? Could he tell us the market in British Columbia for steel products? Could he tell us the market in British Columbia that's currently being served by Western Canada Steel from their scrap reduction? Could he tell us the market, not in tonnage, but in kinds of steel in reinforcing bars and flat-rolled stock and all that kind of thing, because it's not enough to say that there's hundreds of thousands of tons or millions of tons here in British Columbia. You have to go beyond that and say it's this kind of product and the mill we would like to put up can make that kind of product because there is a very wide variety and there are economies of scale in the steel business.

Before he goes off for Japan and looks for foreign investment in our steel industry, could he tell us what talks he has had with Canadian steel companies, what kind of propositions they made him, and if he has reason to believe that the Japanese are going to be more generous? Because Canadian steel companies have a very high standing in the world. They have been consistently more profitable than U.S. companies. They have been able to undersell the United States steel companies in the United States market, even though they are much smaller, because our Canadian steel companies….

AN HON. MEMBER: On some commodities.

MR. GIBSON: …on some commodities. Our Canadian steel companies have stayed in the forefront of technological progress; they have made the investment to modernize. They are Canadian companies, not foreign-owned companies. To what extent has the Minister talked with them? Will he give them a chance at the British Columbia market as well as the Japanese companies? Indeed, why does he have to go to Japan at all?

I would like to speak for a moment about the statistics branch of the Minister's department, to say how tremendously important I think it is. I cannot find in the estimates book, and lacking the annual report, I cannot find a breakdown on the manpower and the increase in the statistics branch. But I hope it's a large increase because this statistics branch is critical to the Legislature in the performance of its duties and to British Columbians in the assessment of how things are going in this province. I hope the Minister will continue to upgrade that department and to enlarge the staff there, the current staff being excellent but more people being needed.

Would the Minister give some thought to guaranteeing the continuing independence and impartiality of that branch by making a relatively independent post of chief statistician of British Columbia? Perhaps pursuant to a statistics Act brought in for the purposes of guaranteeing that kind of autonomy because one of the most important things in the public dialogue is that people should be able to have faith in the government figures. I submit to him that the best way to do that is to have it pursued under the aegis of specific legislative authorization and relative autonomy of the chief statistician.

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

[ Page 2275 ]

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the need to create an economic council of British Columbia. I want to read a couple of paragraphs from The Toronto Star of February 26, because there is in Ontario exactly this kind of institution

"The 21-man Ontario Economic Council has a budget of $402,000 this year to advise the provincial government on Ontario's economic and social development.

"The council was set up in 1962 to suggest ways to ensure stable prices, full employment and economic development. Although it reports to the Minister of Industry and Tourism, 'it can do pretty well anything,' says the council's chief executive officer, Ian Butters. The council has issued 23 major reports, and most, like the five latest, are written by private consultants."

Then it goes on to list five reports of an excellent variety, cutting across the economic, social and organizational structure of the province.

I would commend this kind of institution to the Minister as a thing that would be very helpful to him as another voice in this province for the production side of affairs rather than the consumption side of affairs.

To come back to this theme briefly, this government is very good at consumption and doesn't understand as well the production side of our economy, so every new voice we can get in that area is an important addition to British Columbia.

A council of this kind would produce an annual report which would discuss the business, the labour, the economic and general climate in British Columbia, and as well concentrate on special factors of importance that might have emerged over that year. A council of this kind could, as well, on reference from the government, make special studies in areas of concern to the government.

We could sure use a couple of studies right now in the housing field and the mining field. I think it would be useful to the government had it had an institution it could have referred these things to six months age, a year ago, whenever the government first got the concern in these fields, instead of bringing in half-baked legislation based on completely inadequate economics.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, when the Minister was saying some words earlier on, he said to some of the opposition Members, "You have no faith in the province." What he didn't understand is that the opposition has no faith in the government in this particular area because there's never been a time, Mr. Chairman, of greater unease in this province in the business community. There's fear in some sections — I don't think terror would be too strong a word.

There have been suggestions of people leaving British Columbia. I don't think there's much of that; British Columbians don't want to leave this province. It's a wonderful province. We believe in this province, but this government has created a terrible climate of uncertainty and in many areas fear.

Look at the field of mining and look at the Minister's concern about northwestern development. Now he signed an agreement with the federal government, a DREE agreement. I'd like him to tell us how much money there will be available. Newspaper accounts have suggested $300 million of federal money in two five-year increments of $150 million each over the next 10 years. Were these accurate reports? Is this on a 50-50 matching basis?

That's the financial side. Lets look at the real side, what's on the ground. The centrepiece of the northwestern development area was two enormous mineral deposits — three actually: The Stikine copper deposit; the Liard copper deposit being developed by Silver Standard; and as an energy source for these two mines if they came onstream, the Groundhog coal deposits. Tying all this together was to be the British Columbia Railway extension.

These developed mines were going to provide the basis of the freight for the BCR extension. I'm not arguing against that extension; it should be made. I have great faith in railroad extensions. In time it will pay its way, but how long a delay is this government going to cause through what it has done to the mining industry? The Minister said…I don't know if I have the quote right here…he said that the protestations of the mining industry were temporary. I've lost the quote, Mr. Chairman — I don't have it right here. He didn't think they were very serious, in any event.

I think he's whistling in the dark. He needs those industries for his northwestern development. I'd like him to stand up and agree with me on that and tell us that they are an essential part of the package. There can't be any question of it, but I'd like his confirmation.

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

He has to agree that those mines are critical, and he has to understand that at the moment those mines aren't going ahead. What is he going to do about that? The rest of the cabinet may not care about that area or about that industry, but that's his job as Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. When all else fails and when the cabinet gets off on a completely unfounded economic dogmatic kick about driving an industry into the ground so that this region under the Minister can't get developed, what's he going to do about it? What's he going to do about it, Mr. Premier?

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

[ Page 2276 ]

you're talking about.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm telling the Premier that he doesn't know what he's talking about. When it gets to the mining industry, Mr. Chairman, the Premier doesn't know what he's talking about. I won't say any more than that — I don't want to be unkind to the Premier.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to trespass into the area covered by Bill 31. Reference is quite permissible, of course.

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

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says: "Thou shalt not trespass." That's the government that just said to all the prospectors: "We're going to take over all your claims." But back to the Minister, because I don't want to say things in this debate that should wait until a later time.

Is the Minister aware of the long-year drilling contract on that Stikine copper property — $900,000 that was going to block it out, that was going to be the basis for his $400 million development that's been cancelled? Is he aware of that? The Stikine copper property is a $400 million development; the Liard copper property is a $250 million development. Add in the Groundhog coalfield and the associated railway and you're up well over $1 billion. It's very important to British Columbia, Mr. Minister. Can you give us the status of that, please? Everything we hear is that it's gone sour because of actions of your government.

Mr. Chairman, that's about all I'm going to say at this point, except to once again say to the Minister that the opposition has great faith in this province, just as the people in this province have. There has never been a time in this province when its citizens have been less certain about its economic future and about the future of areas best described under the Minister's title as industrial development, trade and commerce.

For that reason we wish the Minister well. We hope and pray that he will be successful inside cabinet in bringing forth and getting accepted those ideas that will make this province prosperous in the future, and not rely on the forward momentum of the general Canadian economy, which is what carried us through 1973, and on the number of people coming here from other parts of the country, which is what carried our growth through 1973. We hope that he will not rely simply on the fortune of resources with which we were visited by the good Lord for the future, but rather state how he is going to change and enhance and encourage the secondary and tertiary sectors of this economy to give us a way to build on our resource base for the future in the only way that's a really secure foundation, and that's in a skilled, highly educated, hard-working population based on research and development and productivity in secondary and service industries.

HON. MR. LAUK: I want to say that I am really impressed by the knowledgeability and the quality of the rational debate that the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has given us today. I hope that he's an example to every one of the opposition Members. He has presented today some rational inquiries and has shown his concern about this department and the economy of the province in which he lives. I'd like to congratulate him for that.

You've asked a number of questions, Mr. Member. I don't want to take a lot of time but I'll try to answer them as precisely as I can. If there are any specific numbers and details that you would like, I'd be only to happy to provide them for you afterwards or in my office or whatever you like. Obviously you are interested in a rational exchange.

Resource upgrading, I'll deal with in a moment — I want to discuss a number of those things in just a second. I'll move on to foreign investment and then come back.

On foreign investment, I'm not particularly happy with the foreign investment review Act. I don't think it does anything for anybody, quite frankly. I don't even think it's an attempt; I don't think it's a first step in preventing the kind of foreign ownership of our resources. Something should have been mentioned in the title of the Act, for starters, which dealt with foreign ownership, not foreign investment.

That's the key to the philosophy of the Government of the Province of British Columbia — we don't put a flag on the money that comes into this province. What we are concerned about is outright control of our industries by foreign owners. We can't prevent all of it, but I think we can prevent most of it and start to turn the tide in favour of people in British Columbia owning their own resources and their own industries.

We've taken some steps in that direction. Of necessity, they have had to be negative steps, but we made them. One was the acquisition of Kootenay Forest Products for the prevention of the takeover of not only that industry but the community itself by Japanese owners. With great respect to the Japanese, it happens to be a total community, and we couldn't let them have it.

[ Page 2277 ]

In that way I say let's distinguish between ownership and control in foreign investment. We are happy to receive foreign investment; we are happy to provide a reasonable return on that investment. But we are loath to alienate our industry and our resources to foreign owners.

With respect to better research education, I don't know whether the Hon. Member has the organizational chart of the department — I sent that along with the reading list. I suppose you don't. All right, then I'll only give you 4 out of 10 for this first session.

In that organizational chart we have divided the department into two halves: one is research, the planning branch; the other is operations. Under research we have the economic plans and statistics. There would be the statistical branch and the planning branch — two separate groups, in order to preserve the very thing that you have been talking about. The statistical branch to us is the key anchor to planning, policy development and industry assistance generally. All of the statistical information in our reports from the stats branch is still available, and we hope upgraded to the private sector as a service. I agree with you that it should be an independent branch, but it must serve the planning side of government. You agree with that.

The business education group are what might be called, in our organization, the business development side, and that's in operations. It's primarily located in Vancouver. It includes business development, trade and development and the small business institute.

There are several federal liaison programmes that look as if they might be very good. We have a federal liaison group as well. Just a small staff of one or two men and secretarial help to constantly keep in touch with the federal programmes that are coming up. Some of them are good. I don't feel the provincial taxpayers should be spending money so that we can overlap in that field with the federal government.

At the same time we have the small business group which will be providing specific details, management, marketing experience, source of raw materials, and so on, whatever it happens to be. We hope to be able to coordinate those things and put people together and assist them in developing small businesses.

We are working closely with the British Columbia Research Council, of which I am chairman of the board, and they have small business group management seminars as well.

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

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

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Research and development in British Columbia, I couldn't agree more with every one of the comments made by the Hon. Member. My department, together with the B.C. Research Council, I hope soon will be developing a proposal for an exemplary industrial research park in and for the Province of British Columbia. The location and the details, I think, should await further announcement. But I think you are absolutely correct; it is essential.

You mentioned remarks by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I don't believe that really he covers that in detail in his discussions. He usually talks about how the technological advanced types of research, and he talks about some kind of a lens — a solar-view lens. I've read the book — everybody's read the book — I have it under my pillow. Looking at the stars and the moon and so on.… I think this is what the Member does most of the time because, you know, I found out that it would only employ a handful of people, and most of those we would have to import from the United States because of the technical problems. Then he talked about some other technological advance….

MR. GARDOM: You missed the whole point.

HON. MR. LAUK: No, I don't miss the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's point, and I don't miss the point made by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) because they are different points. I accept the Member's comments, and I think we should have an industrial research and development park here in the Province of British Columbia to attract people from all over the province and use provincial brains and technology.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: But we are doing something about it with the B.C. Research Council. Would you wake up Garde, there? I don't think he's been listening.

The development corporation investment policy — that will be decided, in terms of the legislation, by the board of directors. Control and independence will be, in terms of the legislation, with the board of directors. I took every opportunity and every piece of time, even though I was under great pressure from all sides of the House to get the board appointed, I wanted to appoint what I would consider a board that could act independently in the interests of the people at large. I think I have done that and they have the confidence of this government as they should have. I hope they will carry out an independent line.

Now, you must read that statement in line with

[ Page 2278 ]

the legislation which controls the amount of investment or purchase to $1 million. We felt we must be responsible to this House and have the corporation responsible to this House in that respect. Other than that — other than a few controls in terms of their establishment and how many people they hire, and so on — their investment policy, their thrust, their direction, is that of the board of directors. I think that it is as independent as we can responsibly make it.

Western economic cooperation: I'll deal briefly with that. I dealt with it before. Steel in Saskatchewan; as far as we are concerned there is lots of room for competition. I agree with you, you have to look at specific products of steel to determine what kind of market you have in British Columbia. For example, we shouldn't make rails. Rails, to me, are more efficiently made in Nova Scotia or in the Maritimes, and we can ship them through the Panama Canal more cheaply than we can make them here. There are other examples: piping, nuts and bolts, rebar and merchant bar that must be made here because that's the cheapest place to make them — ships, boxcars and so on.

When we think about the potential of the use in British Columbia for steel, we are not just thinking of today and the 250,000 to 200,000-odd tons that are used by Western Canadian Steel in their rebar and merchant bar operation — they use scrap and so on — we're not thinking just of the current demand and the current market. We are thinking of the potential as well, as I think any jurisdiction has to.

Yes, we have heard from Ipsco, but I would just like to say we should be careful to respect the confidentiality of the steel companies who have submitted proposals to us. I will say no more about our conversation with Ipsco, or any other company until we have made a decision that is favourable to one or the other or none.

The economic council — on the one hand we have opposition Members who are saying that this socialist government is increasing bureaucracy and so on and so forth. It seems to me an unfortunate direction to form an economic council that must have its staff and must have an organization at a time when we can already call upon the academic and the business community, as I have been doing for the last several months, for informal discussions and policy directions. They have been very helpful, and I pay tribute to the people at our universities and colleges, and to the key people of the business industry who never vote for us, but who seem to be British Columbians first and who offer their advice without partisanship and are very helpful to us. We don't agree sometimes — quite often — but that's what happens.

I think I would like to keep it on that basis for a while. If we see the need for an economic advisory council — maybe initially an informal one, then we can formalize it later on.

The general development agreement I've announced to the press: $150 million from the feds over five years. A drop in the bucket. The provincial government is going to spend much more money in this province than that, but we're a rich province and perhaps we don't deserve any more than $150 million over five years. Maybe we don't deserve it. I don't know. But we pay our taxes.

I'll just answer that the northwestern development thing depends on a number of factors. It depends on the railroad, not only the extension you're talking about, but another as well. It depends also on the sawmills, on the Eurocan situation, on the Canadian Cellulose situation and on port development in Prince Rupert. I say that the most important decision we have to make in this province — well, maybe the second or third most important — is port development at Prince Rupert.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's one of the most intelligent things he's said all morning. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. LAUK: And he'll never get much better, Mr. Chairman. There's that massive opposition trying to overrun this people's government. They do it every time. In bed with big business. Every time they're dealing and dealing, and trying to get us out of government. The majority movement, whatever.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister return to the vote?

HON. MR. LAUK: Northwest development — Mr. Member, when that railroad goes in there, if the people involved in the Stikine and the Liard — is it Silver Standard you mentioned? — and in the Groundhog coal situation, as soon as a railroad goes in there if they don't do it somebody is going to do it. They know perfectly well that they're going to proceed with that. It's just political posturing for them to say that the Stikine is all over. Even if they don't, this province can afford to wait. What's the big rush? What are you in a hurry for?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's going to be there for a long time, and we're not going to turn our backs on the northwest.

[ Page 2279 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't cut the trees.

HON. MR. LAUK: We saved Col-Cel from devastation because we are concerned about the community. Your private enterprise buddies didn't do that. They were going to pull out, pick up stakes, take a bundle of cash and go to New York.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Great heavens, what a funny attack! The Hon. Minister started off saying he was moving from "statistics to action." Then he said that he'd expanded his Vancouver office, he talked a little bit about analyses and meetings and cooperation between the western provinces. He said that he's thinking about steel. Thinking, thinking, thinking.

He displayed amazing acumen in dealing with directional knowledge. He talked about the northwest, the northeast, the Kootenays and showed that he was well aware of the points of the compass. Then he talked about thrusts and directions and the Pacific Rim. Then he said, "Growth but not growth for growth's sake." Mr. Chairman, those words were rather reminiscent of the former Wes Black, even though they were delivered somewhat like Whispering Smith.

Even most remarkable is the fact that the substance of the Minister's remarks this morning are really truly in line with his governmental predecessor. He's going some to try to get to that kind of a record, I can tell you.

"From statistics to action," he said. He didn't give us any statistics, Mr. Chairman, and he demonstrated even less action, as the Member over there said.

When the Attorney-General had the portfolio last year, the only claim that he had to performance was that he was restructuring the department.

One thing — at least it was a spinoff Ministry for him, he wasn't getting special pay for spinning his wheels in neutral as this Minister is. But once again, he started off this morning with the old saw of returning to organization and restructuring. He happens to call that action. I'd just say ho-hum.

Speaking of action, I'd like to commend the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) for the encouraging remark he made earlier this morning dealing with the hospital workers. I'd like to congratulate him for that and I do hope the message that comes from this House this morning could be well-studied and well-considered by the firemen at the international airport in the City of Vancouver.

But to this Minister, we don't even have a report of his great world of zero since December, 1972: 15 months of no account, of all of this nameless and faceless dramatic action he's talking about. The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made the point very validly. In taking a look at this vote, we see office equipment in here is up from $450 to $900 this year, which is 100 per cent. But by special warrant, it has soared to $86,000 — just a modest 10,000 per cent increase — without legislative vote and without legislative sanction, all done behind the red door of cabinet.

There is, perhaps, not even the faintest of hope in a government such as this to expect that this kind of a Ministry should be successful. We have with this government the most radical, left-wing government ever to exist in Canada since the time of its Confederation and before that. I would probably suggest to this government, and to the Minister as well, if he's not able to do better than he has demonstrated this morning, the most economic course of all would be to scrap the whole portfolio and make this money available to industry in low-interest loans.

He talked about the business climate not being scared, as he says the opposition has mentioned. That's absolutely false. The business community in the Province of British Columbia is scared willy-nilly of this government. They're looking to very good history and very good reasons for being scared. They're looking at industry; they're looking at the insurance industry, which was a taxpaying, lawful, non-polluting vocation. Its doors were slammed shut, Castro-ized without compensation, just like the action of any banana republic. And he wonders why industry in the Province of British Columbia is disturbed and is concerned and, indeed, is frightened.

The mining industry and prospecting are absolutely petrified. Rental housing has ground to a halt. Forestry — the small loggers can't get trees. Farmers and consumers are continuing to be set upon by antiquated marketing boards, all espousing the kind of control and regulation that is practised and preached by this government and by this Minister.

The business community, believe it or not, Mr. Minister, has heard of the most red, radical doctrine on the library shelves of this country since Das Kapital: the Waffle Manifesto. It's very innocuously labelled, but it's vicious in direction. I'm going to ask this Minister whether he accepts or whether he rejects this premise:

"Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of production in the interest of the Canadian people as a whole."

Do you accept that or do you reject that premise? And, secondly, it says this:

"They include extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as the key resource industries, finance and credit, and industries strategic to planning our economy."

Does the Minister accept or reject that? That

[ Page 2280 ]

covers all of the primary products industry in the Province of B.C. as well as finance and credit. And he wonders why the business community in the Province of British Columbia is scared.

What these people are espousing, Mr. Chairman, is everything under one roof, under one red roof. I'm going to ask the Minister: is that going to be the master plan of this government for the Province of B.C.? I think he should keep right out of business because you're going to wreck the economy and, I'd say, wreck the province. You're not going to end up being a government but a wrecking gang. Government, Mr. Chairman, should not be in the facility doing the job; it should be sort of the cattle prod to the stern and the carrot to the front. Provide the incentives and provide the guidelines and provide some effective degree of intelligent regulation, but don't do the job yourself and don't place everybody in-house.

A word about secondary industry. There's no question of a doubt that we continue to need secondary industry in B.C. Ever since I've been in this House, Members from all sides of the House have talked and talked and talked and talked about the need for secondary industry in the province. There has still been no dramatic increase at all. The label we should have in B.C. should be "Made in B.C." instead of just dig it and catch it and bag it and ship it out of the province.

This is why we need an explosion in the field of research. Make the equipment we need to have to work the mines and to take the fish out of the sea and to farm the farms — produce that equipment and make it in the Province of British Columbia. In the field of research this is the point the Hon. Minister missed. As my colleague mentioned a few moments ago from North Vancouver, and as stated by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), it's not a question of the number of people involved specifically in research; it's the fantastic amount of spinoff industries that can result from an effective kind of research programme.

I'm happy to hear the Minister say, yes, he's thinking about or somewhat favouring a research park. Well, that's all right, but he's talking about being a man of action. Let's have some action on the thing and let's hear from his this morning. What are his plans? We don't want to have him Rip Van Winkle the thing as he's apparently proposing to do with steel. When he's talking about steel, where's the ore? Is that all going to be B.C. ore or are we going to have to import that as well? What are these plans and what are these projections? That's the kind of information in my view that should be made available to the public and not left in the think tank or otherwise of this particular Minister.

Personally, I'd like to hear him say we're going to move into continental free trade. The moment we did that, we would find the cost of our products in B.C. dropping by 30 per cent at perhaps the very least. I think that's a great direction to take, an absolutely great direction to take.

Before sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to find out from the Minister exactly what his responsibilities are and the precise responsibilities of the civil servants who work with him — all of the people in his department — in equating the value or the rationale as to whether or not this government goes into the private sector, whether it buys shares in a company or whether it involves itself in a complete takeover. To what extent was his department involved in the Plateau Mills transaction, of Vancouver Island Coach lines, or Pacific Poultry, on South Peace De-Hy Products, or Woodbridge Development, or Kootenay Forest Products, or Glenshiel Hotel as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) up the street there says? And Dunhill Development and Col-Cel. To what extent is the expertise or the lack thereof of this Minister and his department involved in these transactions? If this department is not the department primarily responsible for the investigations, where does it come from? Where does it come from indeed?

I would ask the Hon. Minister if he is prepared to table the analyses of the projections of these various companies the government has taken over with this House. Is he prepared to go ahead and table with this House the appraisals and the audits in the Dunhill situation? Has that come to his attention? Surely to goodness he is the Minister within this portfolio responsible for the financial expertise as to the advantages or disadvantages, the latter it is in our view, of this government entering into the private sector.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I hadn't really intended to get into this debate. However, I was very much disturbed by some of the comments of the Hon. Minister in answering the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) regarding Tilbury Island.

I had thought, in light of the comments I made in the budget debate and in the comments that others have made, that the Minister would have considered scaling down the Tilbury Island proposal.

Presently the government has purchased 726 acres of land. It is my feeling that this could be scaled down in such a way so that 500 acres of that land could be maintained in agriculture. Some of the marginal land, approximately 200 acres, could possibly be developed along with other lands that are marginal in the surrounding area.

I asked during the budget debate and I would ask again that the areas to be considered would be the bog areas. In Burns Bog there are several thousand acres of land, much of it mined out and destroyed,

[ Page 2281 ]

filled with hog fuel and so on, swamp land, that could be used for an industrial development. There's lots of land in Richmond — and I'll get to that later on in my presentation — at least 1,200 acres available that's also burned-out bogland which could be used.

It seems to me that we bought farmland back of Tilbury Island. We bought it and we should farm it; we should not be putting it into industrial development.

I would request also that we should be encouraging and actually promoting overall environmental impact studies of the entire area — both the Tilbury Island area and the whole Fraser River estuary.

Particularly we should be investigating the activities of the Fraser River Harbour Commission which the Minister was using to justify his proposal. I think that that is a particularly dreadful proposal — the one that the Fraser River Harbour Commission has been promoting for the Fraser River. We should be taking some very strong action to stem their proposals, to actually bring them to heel.

What they are proposing would completely destroy the Fraser River estuary and we should not be embarking upon any of the programmes that are going to encourage further development along the lines that the Fraser River Harbour Commission has suggested. So I think it's very important that we do carry out very strenuous, very careful environmental-impact studies along the Fraser River estuary and not just at Tilbury Island or the back-up land at Tilbury Island, but on the Fraser in general.

It is true, Mr. Chairman, that the municipality of Delta is also thinking of taking up more land. The land — 3,000 acres — was zoned for industrial use prior to Bill 42, and the municipality of Delta is considering that with the government plan they could actually expand to a larger development than what we are even considering. The question I have about this in relation to Bill 42 is: are we to say that all land previously zoned for industry is going to be allowed to go into industrial development?

It seems to me that's the inference when we are the first ones to take land out of the agricultural reserve. If we are to take 3,000 acres of land out of Delta, or if we are to take 700 acres of land out of Delta, what is to stop another 1,200 or 1,300 acres from going into industrial development. Of course, Delta is already promoting that idea now.

If we look at that then we have 4,000 acres of land in Richmond that could be going into industrial development — land which is prime farmland. In effect, we could see one-third of the farmland in Richmond going in this kind of proposal. Presently the Greater Vancouver Regional District has adopted a proposal that 4,000 acres of Richmond land be put into a secondary reserve category under Bill 42, which means that the question is already open as to whether it should remain as farmland or whether it should go into industrial development. What we are doing with the Tilbury proposal is actually leaving that door a little wider open by saying: "Well, we've done it. Maybe you can get your land into industrial development as well."

I think that we should be considering alternative sites to the Tilbury proposal. Some of the land, as I suggested, could be used. Some of it is less valuable farmland. Some of it could be used, but I think the major portion of it should by used, as a buffer strip and a protective agricultural area. We should be considering — and I would ask the Minister to consider this — the mined-out areas in Burns Bog that I've mentioned. There are thousands of acres there; it's a massive bog area. A lot of it has been mined out and destroyed for its use as a bog or for any other use — also the mined-out areas, the garbage dumps, and the bog areas on the Richmond side. It's an area which the Fraser River Harbour Commission has already recommended for deepsea port use because it is very marginal land and, of course, it has the deepest channel along that side of the river.

Also, I think that we should be looking into the marginal farmlands to the east of the Tilbury proposal, lands which are scrublands full of hard hack, lands that have been over-farmed in the past years. The soil isn't as good as it is more boggy soil, and it's not as good for farming. These are marginal lands that could also be considered. But I'm very much disturbed that we're actually taking the prime farmland from the area.

Then the final thing that should be considered that has not been done is the impact on the overall growth of the area, and I would ask the Minister to consider this. How much back-up land is required for residential use, or if we're not going to have residential land for the people that work there to live there, then how much land is going to be taken up in roads and highways? What kind of transit system? How many bridges, tunnels and so on are we going to need to get the workers from Vancouver out to the Tilbury Island proposed site?

I'm not thinking here in terms as strictly as the Tilbury back-up lands, but the land that's going to be required when the development expands — which is bound to expand. When you start a development such as this…. There has been nothing in here, no guarantee that it's going to be contained to that 726 acres. So you end up having a much larger area than you had anticipated. It's going to mean a tremendous amount of growth in that area. I'm wondering how much back-up land is going to be required for housing? How much for transportation and so on? What has been considered there?

However, Mr. Chairman, what really disturbed me the most was the Minister's suggestion this morning that they were actually going to be dredging in the

[ Page 2282 ]

Fraser. This is something that I haven't heard from the Minister before, and I was quite shocked in hearing it. The Fraser River Harbour Commission has made a proposal in their study — the Norm Pearson report — that the Fraser River should be dredged; that the river should be channelized; that the banks should be brought out further into the river; that the area should be infilled where the sloughs are, such as Tilbury slough. It should be infilled and the river narrowed down in order to flush the sand, the silt, out deep into the saltchuck instead of allowing it to settle in the river bottom.

With this type of infilling — they call it a trifurcation programme — they're anticipating that the river would be free-flowing and self-flushing. I was quite surprised to hear the Minister suggesting that the province was actually going to be participating in this programme in some way.

What happens here is that you lose all the back eddies. You lose the little sloughs around Tilbury and other parts of the river if the overall programme goes ahead. The migrating fry coming down from the spawning beds in the spring and the summer generally stop there to feed before they go out into the ocean. In fact, if they don't stop there to feed they'll be destroyed if they're flushed out into the saltchuck.

So, in effect, we could entirely wipe out the Fraser River salmon fishery if we embark upon a programme like this. Now Tilbury won't do it alone, but if Tilbury does it and then everybody else does it, it could wipe out the fisheries. I'm very much concerned about this.

Right now biologists tell us that the major area for these young fish is along the Fraser River estuary — upstream from Steveston, actually — because the Roberts Bank area where they used to go and feed has been destroyed to a large amount. The area around Iona Island, the north arm of the Fraser, has been completely destroyed. All that's left are the estuaries along the Fraser and part of Sturgeon Bank out west of Steveston. So I'm very much concerned that we would be encouraging that particular programme.

Finally, as far as the agricultural land itself is concerned, it is estimated — and I think quite accurately estimated — that the Fraser Valley farmland represents about 2 per cent of B.C.'s total farmland. However, this 2 per cent of B.C.'s farmland produces 55 per cent of the total agricultural crop value.

Putting this into millions of dollars, the total value of agricultural produce in B.C. I believe in 1972 — I'm not sure of the exact date on this — was $209.1 million. Of that, $114 million was produced in the Fraser Valley, or 55 per cent of the total.

Now we're looking at a proposal here that's going to take out not a major portion of that 2 per cent, but a large proportion of that 2 per cent, from agricultural production. If anyone has visited the landbank at Tilbury Island you'll find that it's land that's used for market gardening. They're growing cabbages on it. There are potatoes and so on — dairy cattle. Actually it's a highly intensified agricultural production that's going on there.

In fact, in the Fraser River Harbour Commission report, which was drafted up by Norm Pearson for the Fraser River Harbour Commission, it says that in that particular area is land with the highest productivity in the whole Fraser Valley. So I'm very much disturbed that that highly productive land is subject to being taken out of production.

I'd like to read you before concluding, Mr. Chairman, a couple of quotes directly taken from the Fraser River Harbour Commission report with regard to the Tilbury Island area and with regard to the Richmond bog area that I've suggested should be looked at as an alternative. They've shown on their maps on page 21 of that report a diagram outlining that Tilbury Island could be used for deepsea port — a small portion of the south shore of the Fraser River. But the major area for a deepsea port would be on the north side of the Fraser on the Richmond side where the burnt-out bogs are that I've mentioned.

On page 22 of this report is "Deepsea Port an Industrial Priority." The second priority mentioned is,

"Fraser-Richmond: In the Richmond bog area this site presents the best opportunity of the Vancouver area for a major port facility with an integrated upland industrial area. It could well include container operations. Major fill and preparation of foundations would be required. Over 1,200 acres could be used and strong municipal cooperation would be essential. Road and rail access and services are needed."

Now this is for the Richmond side; you need roads and rail access to it.

"The relationship to future crossings of the Fraser would be important."

Future crossings and further bridges to Vancouver, further bridges to Delta. These would be required on the Richmond side.

"This area will become increasingly central to the Vancouver area's population."

Then it goes on,

"The Fraser Delta side: This site includes Tilbury Island and the areas to the east and west. It would involve major fill areas."

Now that's much more than on the north side of the river. It would involve major fill areas in their trifurcation channelization programme.

"It would involve major fill areas in conjunction with river channelization and require checking on river models and with fisheries people."

I would like to ask if this has been done?

[ Page 2283 ]

"Rail access is available but road and servicing improvements would be needed. Municipal cooperation would also be essential."

Now what I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that basically the Fraser River Harbour Commission report appears to be the road that we are following. The Tilbury site is going to require and is going to be part of the channelization programme of the Fraser River. That, as it mentions here "...requires checking with fisheries people and the Fraser River model." I don't believe this has been done. I would ask the Minister if he has looked into this. Of course, although rail access is available, major servicing and improvements are also going to be needed to get the people to and from the site.

I would like to request and suggest that we should be abiding by the intent of the Land Commission Act and preserve farmland. We should not be promoting development of anything on agricultural land except farm production.

We should be looking into the formulation of a master plan for the Fraser River foreshore. It could be under the environmental secretariat, or it could be under the Recreation and Conservation department. I'm not worried there too much which but we have to have some major master plan for the Fraser River estuary before we get into development plans such as the Tilbury Island proposal. This, Mr. Chairman, should include public hearings so that people can have some input into the debate as to how much and what kind of development we want on the south arm of the Fraser.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that included in those environmental studies and public hearings and master plan for the Fraser, that we have to look very, very carefully at this report I mentioned from the Fraser River Harbour Commission, because we have to make some attempt to curb the influence that they're having on development along the Fraser.

We should also be investigating very carefully the feasibility of a scaled-down industrial park at the Tilbury Island site, developing the mined-out bogs at Richmond and Delta. This also should include, before we go into that area, a comprehensive environmental impact statement.

I would like to suggest that the Environment and Land Use Secretariat should immediately conduct a study of alternative sites within and without the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It's not entirely necessary that all this industrial development has to go in the greater Vancouver area.

The Hon. Minister has suggested that we should have decentralization and get the industry out of False Creek. Well, maybe this is a good thing, but I don't think it necessarily has to be in the greater Vancouver area. Perhaps some of the people at Kamloops might like to have some industrial development up there, or maybe in other smaller communities throughout the province. We should be looking into a decentralization programme.

Mr. Chairman, the land that is already purchased in the agricultural reserve, I think, should be maintained as agricultural land. I think that if we maintain it as agricultural land, this would set a precedent for the remaining prime agricultural land in the Delta-Richmond foreshore area and other lands that are suggested in secondary categories. If we say, "Okay, we've bought it; we're going to keep it as farmland," then we'll be setting a precedent for everybody else.

Instead of breaking precedents, people would be able to keep our precedent. We'd say, "Okay, we've got this land; we're going to farm it," rather than the other way, encouraging people to say: "Well, the government's set a precedent. They're taking the land out of farm production; why can't we?" The precedent should be the other way around, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, I think that we should be freezing all future land-assembly programmes until public hearings have been held and some public debate has gone on. The Hon. Minister suggested this could not be done because land prices would increase drastically. However, I think it could be done in such a manner that there would be no definite suggestion as to where the site was going to be. We could do it in terms of whether we want an industrial site in the Delta area, and if so, where and how much? After we've had the hearings and had some debate on it, then perhaps we could set up industrial sites. I think that if this would have been done in the first place, probably we would have looked very carefully at the bog areas, and probably this could have been done without too much hassle and not too many complaints.

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Hon. Minister look into these seven different suggestions that I've made and, I think, look at them very, very carefully. I had the feeling before that he was going to look into these things, and the feeling I got from him today was that he was not. So I'm very disturbed about this.

I had the feeling that he was going to consider scaling things down. I would like to say that I have been fighting this proposal for five years before I ever got elected to this House, and I don't intend to stop now.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I was interested in his opening remarks today but he never came in with any specific programmes of how he was going to help develop B.C. industry. Now we've talked about the glamorous industry of foreign capital, and people have mentioned large lumber complexes. They've talked about mining and the

[ Page 2284 ]

difficulty of obtaining funds from outside; but what about the small B.C. companies? What are we going to do to help them develop? That's the individual that has an idea but has limited capital and wants to develop some sort of assembly or secondary manufacturing in British Columbia. I think he's always been the forgotten man.

There are three things your department should be doing, Mr. Minister. They've been mentioned before this morning but I'd like to just run through them. The first is to help these B.C. industries, one is research and the other is education. Certainly we're aware that you're on the right track in providing additional research, and I congratulate you for it.

Research isn't new. I know it's always been a part of the trade department, but we need more research to help these businesses — not just the sophisticated research for major companies, but to help the small businessman develop some sort of secondary manufacturing.

The second thing they need, Mr. Minister, is trade missions. Now I heard you mention trade missions this morning like you'd just discovered them. But I understand that they've been going on for years, not only out of British Columbia, but out of all other provinces plus the federal government. Trade missions are out to find markets, and I hope you'll include more businessmen. I know that organizations other than government have been running trade missions from this province for many years in search of markets, and I'm glad to see you continue this programme of searching out markets.

But the one area the small businessman has trouble with — the British Columbian who wants to start secondary manufacturing — is in finding capital, and capital at a price that he can afford to pay. When he's got the start-up costs and the heavy initial cost of starting a business without a guaranteed amount of sales, his initial years usually are in loss period. He needs low-priced capital to survive the initial years.

There's the problem we have in finding a programme to provide aid for these people. I don't want giveaways like the federal government has had with its incentives to industries, because we've been through that in the Okanagan. We've seen the folly of that programme of giving money to industry with no guarantee that it will be paid back. We've seen….

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about tax concessions under Social Credit?

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking about industry. I'll talk about the Okanagan and why it was designated. It was designated under the formula of the federal government, a formula that only worked in two areas in British Columbia, but seemed to cover all of Quebec at that time — and the Okanagan was part of it. I lived in the Okanagan and I saw the problems connected with this.

The First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) seems to think that there was some special agreement made from the federal government to put that industry in the Okanagan. I must assure him that you can't say that the former government had no contact and no input with the federal government and then expect that they could make special deals.

Particularly the Okanagan had a problem. It has an employment problem. The formula we had that they used for establishing those grants was based partly on several factors. One was unemployment. We had high unemployment in the Okanagan because of seasonal workers that could work enough time and then register on the unemployment scheme. That was part of the problem.

Packing house workers on an extended season got enough time, and we had a high registration for unemployment that showed up in the statistics. Many of these people were married women.

Anyhow, that isn't the principle I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that when those grants came in they didn't help many small local industries. The industries we did get were mostly large nationals that didn't need the funding or the help, or the direction into that area: companies like White Trucks, companies like Hiram Walker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Companies like Wenner Gren.

MR. BENNETT: Well, they weren't in the Okanagan. What I'm saying is that there were no small industries given any help in that area. But not only that; these industries that came in, even such as Fiberform from the United States, were able to get a one-third grant from the government. And when their plant burned down there was no guarantee that the Government of Canada would get this money back, and there was no guarantee that they had to rebuild the plant.

They pulled the facilities out after they'd attracted 125 workmen specializing in boat building and finishing into the area, and they had no obligation either to repay the money or rebuild the facility. So I'm not in favour of grants of that nature, and I'm not in favour of grants to industry at all. I am in favour of aid in receiving financing.

Now most new industries don't have an earnings record. They are small businesses, and the normal financial channels can't lend them enough money to get them over their initial period. This is where they may need some sort of help from the provincial government in the way of a development corporation, providing capital.

The other problem is that most of the help available to them in the initial stages such as the IDB,

[ Page 2285 ]

which fulfils a function, is very expensive money — 11 and 12 per cent. If you've ever seen the amount of security that the IDB demands and how it ties up these small companies, it's very difficult for them to ever get out of trouble should they not meet their initial economic projections, because all their assets are encumbered and they don't have the means to get any other form of proper financing. They would have to deal in a third or fourth market at very high cost financing, and that just helps them dig a deeper hole.

I think that if we're going to consider helping small businesses get started, we have to look at a provincial fund with some sort of subsidized interest rates during the formative years. I think that that, along with the help you'll give them in the research in developing their programmes and helping them find markets, will encourage B.C. citizens to invest in their own province. This is what we're talking about — not the big glamour industries, not the big complexes but the small business that employs maybe only 10 or 12 people.

You mentioned Crestwood Cabinets earlier. There's a small business that I happen to know and I've watched it grow. I've watched it develop in the B.C. market. They finally had to go public to arrange additional funding for their growth problems. But there are lots of businesses which, until they've built up an earnings record, can't go to the public market. They can't go to the banks, they can't go to all the normal lending institutions because they're new and they have no earnings record. This is a problem I talked about.

What you've got to do, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, is develop a fund to provide these people funding, and enough funding so that they just don't get into trouble. As I said, IDB (Industrial Development Bank) lends you just enough money to get going and not enough to cover those two- or three-year early losses that most new businesses face.

Our party has had a proposal, and I'd like to re-introduce it at this time, of a fund of capital that would have an accelerating interest rate starting out with a minimum interest, say at 1 per cent, and gradually increasing until it reaches an amount where they're encouraged to pay it back. Now, this would probably coincide, when the company's successful, with several years' earning record where they can probably go and get financing from normal institutions. They will have a history of earnings; they will have a history of production and it will also ensure that this capital is paid back to keep the fund revolving in this provincial development fund. You wouldn't have to keep increasing the fund because it would come revolving after awhile.

I think proposals such as this would do a lot to help the small businessmen and people that want to start these industries in our province. They're the ones that everybody talks about but nobody really helps. They're the ones that don't have the sophistication to pay for expensive research and studies prior to going into business. They are the people who have a good idea, they have the practical experience, perhaps, to carry it off but they don't have the money to do the feasibility study in the first place. They need the help from your research division; they need help with capital; they'll need help finding markets. I just put this forward as a suggestion to you today, Mr. Minister, through the Chairman.

One or two other things I wanted to mention. I would like to have some idea and some expansion on the thoughts on Tilbury Island that were expressed by the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). These concerns have been brought up in the House before. They were touched on by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), they've been discussed at a meeting I was at in Richmond not so long ago. The people there are still concerned. I wonder if, when I sit down, in response to my remarks you could give a response to the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I think the Member for Richmond raised a number of points which were very good ones and which have not been covered previously. At least, they've not been answered previously. I'd hope that in response to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) the Minister would give a few answers on the whole question of Tilbury Island and the development in the Fraser. He really didn't succeed in settling anybody's doubts and certainly not the Member for Richmond's. I think those points that were raised were good ones.

I'd like the Minister, before he requests the House to pass his vote, to indicate to us why, precisely, the area was chosen, why there was not a proper environmental study done and what about the impact of the future development in that area on the shole environment of the Fraser River estuary.

I'd like to refer him to the criticisms that he has had of those who have asked questions on this. All he said was — and I'm quoting a newspaper story of some time ago, I believe back in November — "The people who are criticizing this decision to establish on Tilbury Island were elitists." I just don't find that calling people names, Mr. Chairman, is a successful way to solve genuine doubts that people have about the development on the island. The fact is that there is considerable concern.

I found in the paper on February 5, 1974: "Lauk Rebuffs Protest on Industrial Park." The first sentence of this story says:

"Industrial Development Minister Gary Lauk has labelled the Sierra Club's request that he abandon the 726-acre Tilbury Island industrial area in the Fraser River as 'elitist.'"

[ Page 2286 ]

That doesn't make a great deal of sense. We want to know the facts and figures on what studies were done and, if no studies were done, why none were done, and how you intend to delay implementation at least until we can have a decent environmental study. I think that's important, Mr. Chairman.

A year ago when we were discussing things like Bill 42 and agricultural protection this government put itself on record and out on a very long limb in terms of its desire to preserve farmland. It saw nothing wrong in riding roughshod over the rights of landowners wherever they might be in the province. It saw nothing wrong with no compensation initially. It saw nothing wrong with depriving people with the value of their land because it was for a higher purpose, namely for the purpose of protecting farmland. Yet when the same type of comments are raised by a Member of your own backbench, from members from the Sierra Club, by the B.C. Wildlife Federation and by the British Columbia Environmental Council, you turn right around and call them elitists. You can't have it both ways. It's about time the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, started answering some of the questions.

What are some of the questions? First of all, he made this announcement at a press conference on November 26, although it had been rumoured for some time previous to that. On November 30, Mr. Chairman, just a few days later, Mr. A. Crerar, the director of the Environment and Land Use Secretariat, was the guest speaker at the meeting of a society of environmental biologists, a professional organization of environmental biologists. During the course of his address Mr. Crerar stated that the Environment and Land Use Secretariat dealt with problems and conflicts between resource departments. It listens to all sides of the problem and then comes up with the best advice for the government.

Concerning the reference for planned development, there are obviously conflicts — farmland, industry, wildlife, recreation, forests, fishing. All these things are in conflict, as has been pointed out in more technical detail by the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves).

So at that time Mr. Crerar was asked a few questions on your announcement of four days before. He was the director of the government's Environmental and Land Use Secretariat. He was asked what studies had been undertaken before you made your announcement. He said: "None that I know of."

Then the question came up again: "Wouldn't this be the responsibility of your secretariat?"

Crerar: "No. There are two decision-making bodies involved — the B.C. Land Commission and the Greater Vancouver Regional District."

"Who would make a decision re the dredging?"

Crerar: "I do not know."

The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) at the Man and Resources conference at Naramata made perfectly clear that the government had not established a department of the environment because they felt that this Environment and Land Use Committee was a more successful method than having a single government department right in there slugging to protect the Kootenays or wherever else somebody wants to establish industry or create a threat to the environment. He made perfectly clear at that time that the secretariat and the committee would serve the same function and that they would avoid these conflicts between Ministries.

Apparently the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources was giving us nothing but hot air at that conference, because this particular proposal of yours does take out an acreage, a section of land, part of which at least is prime farmland, and some of which is marginal.

As far as the development of your department goes, I think it just makes a mockery of the whole concept of the government itself and its Environment and Land Use Secretariat, protecting the public from actions of the government. I've gone into this time after time, namely the role of the government as a protector of the public interest. Whenever you people get involved, through you, Mr. Chairman, through your Ministries in any conflicts you ride roughshod over the public interest for your own particular, specific reasons. This is yet another case. Consumer services ignores problems with ICBC, you ignore problems dealing with the environment and the result is that the public interest is simply not being protected.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the B.C. Land Commission, Mr. William Lane, said this: "There has been no request to consider the Tilbury site specifically." Mr. Gerard Farry, the acting director of planning for the Greater Vancouver Regional District advised: "We were not consulted." Dr. Douglas McKay of the Department of the Environment confirmed our information that he is heading a task force and is preparing a report for the Greater Vancouver Regional District on the environmental assets of the lower Fraser River. He advised that this report was due in March, 1974.

You're making decisions which affect the environment, which are damaging, as has been pointed out well by the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves), when you know full well there is a study in there to come in on the general environmental problem of the area. You are trying to jump the gun — that's what you did. Certainly today you gave no indication of why there was any need for enormous speed. You know as well as I do that there are plenty of other industrial sites in the lower mainland which

[ Page 2287 ]

could have been used in the short run while that study was being prepared.

There are a number of questions. Say you go ahead with this despite all the criticism from within your own party. Has there been a study to determine the claim that drainage of the adjacent areas would be seriously disrupted if you load that 726 acres with sand in preparation for industrial development? Have you done any studies on that, not just to the area itself but of adjacent problems that are going to develop?

I would like to know that and I would like to know, in addition, a good number of other things related to this overall question of development: the problems of the extension of the airport, the Annacis Island treatment plant, the safety of migratory salmon and fingerlings in the growth stage which was mentioned earlier, needs of the fishing fleet, needs of the ferry terminal. All these things cannot be considered in isolation. Your industrial park, from everything we can see, has been considered in isolation, if it has been considered at all, and the decision has been taken in total isolation of the many other facets of the problem.

I would just like to quote to you a letter from the deputy municipal clerk to the Hon. David Barrett, Premier of the Province of British Columbia, on December 28, 1973:

"Dear Sir:

"Re industrial park and deep-sea port in the Fraser estuary on or near Tilbury Island.

"This is to advise that council on December 27 received a copy of a letter written to you by the B.C. Environmental Council on December 5, concerning the proposed development of an industrial park and deep-sea port on or near Tilbury Island in the Municipality of Delta.

"I have been directed to advise that the Council of the Corporation of the District of Burnaby strongly endorses the position taken by the B.C. Environmental Council in this respect and would recommend that the proposed industrial port development be delayed pending a comprehensive environmental impact assessment, followed by a full public hearing."

I don't really understand the government, Mr. Chairman. We had debates a year ago about the Port of Squamish. At that time, after a great deal of pressure from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), the Premier came out and stated there was going to be nothing done without proper environmental studies. He was right to do that. We only regret we had to push him so hard to get that type of commitment out of him.

Now we have another development in another river system, and we get back to the old style of proceeding willy-nilly, regardless of environmental problems. The result is the Minister is even in trouble with members of his own party.

We would like some answers.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is just hiding his head in shame. He's blushing and smiling with embarrassment; he's really looking unhappy. He gave us all this information about Kokanee yesterday, and then when it comes down to salmon, natural spawning fish in the Fraser, why, he's got nothing to say except to look embarrassed. There is good reason for him to look embarrassed. I trust he will get up and support the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) in the government rebellion which is brewing on the competence of the Minister of Industrial Development over environmental land-use conflicts. That's his job.

We don't have a Minister of the environment. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) said we were not going to get one despite the clear promise in the NDP campaign brochures during the election. In the opposition's mind, we have hopes that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation will occupy this type of role and be the advocate in cabinet of proper environmental planning. We have lost confidence in the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in the light of his statements at Naramata. He is our only hope, it said over here, for sanity in that cabinet.

I see that brings resentment from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). Well, so it should, because certainly we are not looking to him for any sanity in that cabinet; we are looking to others. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation, I trust, will have something critical to say of his colleague because no environmental studies were done. It is his job to start standing up and defending the rights of fish and wildlife, as well as NDP Members who happen to want that particular proposal.

Another area, Mr. Chairman: question of advertising. We've got all these great ads: "British Columbia is a beautiful place to do business. And it's going to stay that way." Ad after ad after ad. I would like to know what the results of this advertising have been.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) points out the irony of the fact that this ad is in direct conflict with their approach on Tilbury Island.

In any event, they put out a lot of ads. I would like to know what precisely the result has been. He

[ Page 2288 ]

has gone on to say: "Well, how many has he found with his expensive advertising campaign?

And, by the way, why didn't he answer my question on the order paper about how many dollars were spent on this advertising? It looks like the same old advertising slush fund: money going out for all the small weeklies for ads which are not having results at all. Certainly none we have been told about. I trust the Minister will answer questions on that.

The ads go on, Mr. Minister: "British Columbia has it all, including natural resources, the work force and the Pacific Rim location — second to none in terms of market and transportation." The promotion adds this, however: "Still, we are asking for more." You bet your bottom dollar they are asking for more. Bill 31 is an indication of that. The Bill introduced on prospecting is another indication of that.

Instead of advertising, why doesn't the government get down to creating a climate of confidence, such as the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) talked about, whereby businessmen coming to this province know they are going to get a fair shake. There is a second area for answers.

How much money are you spending on these ads? Is the programme terminated? What has been the result of this major advertising programme?

Listening to the Minister earlier, I would have guessed that no one had ever gone on a trade mission before. This point was raised by the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett). How about the British Columbians who have already been on trade missions, be it under the Vancouver Board of Trade or any other board of trade in the province, the federal government auspices, or, indeed, under provincial government auspices?

You tell us you are an open government, yet we don't know one thing about your trip to Hong Kong, Mr. Minister, and we should at this stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to get a silk suit made.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's going to get a silk suit made, somebody said. That would be in keeping, because I was the assistant trade commissioner in Hong Kong when the last provincial government sent a delegation and I can remember….

HON. MR. LAUK: You're the guy they're complaining about. (Laughter.) I know all about you now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, you come back from Hong Kong and I will know all about you, I can tell you that. I have plenty of contacts left there.

I want to know who you are going to meet. What companies are you going to meet? I have a personal interest in this because I know many of them and their abilities. I remember some of the disasters we had when the British Columbia cabinet Ministers who accompanied the Premier on the previous trip were not properly briefed, did not understand when they got there what the market situations were, did not understand the level of the people we had lined up to meet them and, indeed, the difficulty we faced simply because they were there — many of them, not all of them — junketing and not working. I would just like to have a look at your itinerary for Hong Kong as soon as possible.

HON. MR. LAUK: Would you like to come with us…?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I came with you, Mr. Minister, I could do a great deal better job than you can. But that's beside the point at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair?

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I want to know, as a person who has, as I said, the background of some time there, what your itinerary is, why the government is being so….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, why is the Minister being so secretive about it? Why doesn't he indicate who he is going to see? Is this not organized yet? He's dealing with a commercial and business community which is very international in complexion. It's difficult to arrange something at the last minute, which makes a great deal of sense. By now, surely, he must have a pretty good idea of whom he is going to see and what the subjects will be. I trust the Minister will look into that. It is all very well to suddenly discover trade missions and to forget that many have been sent before. Many have been inadequate and unsatisfactory because of inadequate preparation before leaving British Columbia and Canada. I would like to know precisely what he is doing in that regard.

I would like to say a word or two, Mr. Chairman, about DREE in the Kootenays. Again, it's with respect to environmental research being done by the Minister prior to announcements having been made. There seems to have been decisions made on this without a proper study by the Environment and Land Use Secretariat. I would like to know what other programmes he might have in the Kootenays and in

[ Page 2289 ]

the north which are in the preparation stage. What preparation is being done to have proper environmental input into the decision? We want to know what the objectives of your regional planning are. There is a fair bit of concern in both areas, in particular in the Kootenays, that your objectives are incompatible with the style of life they have now.

Again, I would like to repeat the call of the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) that we need public involvement. You carry on with your press releases, your announcements, but the public involvement your government promised when it was trying to get itself elected to government has been ignored time after time.

We'd like to know at what stage public involvement will occur if it does take place because I've often found myself in the last few years in the difficult position of finding that public involvement is not permitted at the critical stages, at the stage where I'm saying yes or no, and public involvement tends to get taken into account when a fundamental decision has been made and the only things that can be altered are minor decisions on the method rather than whether or not a programme is in itself worthwhile.

We'd like to know the criteria you use, Mr. Minister, for those words that you used before — optimum development and socio-economic planning and all the jargon that comes from people in this area.

These are questions, Mr. Chairman, which I think should be answered well before his estimates are passed. I hope that he'll now try and answer them.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to say that this is a great little Minister. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You watch your job. There's no need to give him a hard time now!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I could speak as the former Minister in this portfolio, and I think he's a marvellous replacement in that portfolio.

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order. I feel the Attorney-General is just supporting the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce so he won't be after the Attorney-General's job. He wants to keep him where he is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no point of order. Would the Hon. Attorney-General continue, please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not a point of order. The fact that when I leave my seat here occasionally the Minister sidles over and sits in my seat doesn't worry me at all. (Laughter.) Somebody suggested that the Minister was bucking for my job. I just want to say that this is not so — I'm sure that cannot be so.

MR. CHABOT: That's what Caesar said.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He is indispensable in the position that he now holds with this government. He's an indispensable Minister, and one of the greatest Ministers we've ever had in that portfolio. I wish him every success in that portfolio.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I had no designs on the Attorney-General's position until I heard that speech. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Does someone hear a toilet flushing over there? It must be the plumbing from Public Works, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would request the Hon. Minister to be more careful in his choice of words.

HON. MR. LAUK: I thought that was a choice of absolute precision, but I'll try harder.

MR. PHILLIPS: Gutter language.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Waffle Manifesto. I haven't read the Waffle Manifesto. I have no intention of reading the Waffle Manifesto. I might form an intention of reading the Waffle Manifesto; it gets more interesting every time he reads it. He knows more about it than I do. He should check with that Hong Kong contact he has and see if they couldn't get something going.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, which Hong Kong contact?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no point of order. Would the Hon. Member continue?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many Hong Kong contacts he has. He'll have to work it out. The Hon. Member implies that I must subscribe to anything that's said by a Member or a group of Members in my party. That's what he's suggesting, Mr. Chairman. That's what he's suggesting. Well, I'm going to ask the Hon. Member to stand up and renounce a statement by Jean Marchand that he's going to nationalize the CPR. He's a Liberal. You say Jean Marchand is silly. You'll never get an appointment to the bench that way — never. I'm going to get on the phone and tell Jean right away what you've been saying.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked some questions with respect to small business. I don't know where he was. Maybe he was out having a cup

[ Page 2290 ]

of coffee, but I was talking about small business for quite some time. The research and education part of our operations branch is being expanded. We're going to develop a liaison with the federal groups. We agree entirely that this kind of management assistance and this kind of marketing assistance must be available to the small businessman in British Columbia.

Trade missions. I never suggested that no other people went on trade missions. The trade missions that we sent out this year from my department happened to be the first from the department since 1966 — don't forget that. Certainly the Board of Trade and others have been very successful trade missions and I didn't want to imply otherwise.

As far as capital and financial assistance to small businessmen, Mr. Chairman, to the Leader of the Opposition, I'm hopeful that the board of directors which is meeting today subsequently will develop a programme for assistance to small businessmen that will do us proud and be able to assist these people.

Advertising, Mr. Member. I'm sorry I didn't give you the figure. Total cost of time and space advertising in the accompanying production charges in the calendar year 1973 was $69,209.08. So far there have been over 700 responses being evaluated by the department and the Development Corporation as a direct result of the advertising campaign. When that evaluation is complete, I'll be only too happy to report it to the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Lea files answer to question 2.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.