[ Page 2291 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105). Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading –– 2291

Pharmacy Act (Bill 106). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading –– 2291

Oral questions

Retention of Dr. McDougall. Mr. Chabot –– 2291

Completion date for Squamish boxcar facilities.

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 2291

Employment of students by Department of Consumer Services.

Mr. Wallace –– 2291

Plans to freeze selling price of homes. Mr. Curtis –– 2292

Requests from egg producers to restrain marketing board proceedings. Mr. Gardom –– 2292

Fee paid to McDougall for work on Columbia Treaty.

Mr. Chabot –– 2292

Landings of government jets at strike-bound airports.

Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 2292

Withdrawal of motion 24 to permit debate on Skagit.

Mr. Gibson –– 2293

Egg Marketing Board order for payment of levies.

Mr. Wallace –– 2293

Housing developments on OMI lands in Mission.

Mr. Wallace –– 2293

Selection of Fraser Valley College council.

Mr. Schroeder –– 2294

Plans for roads and bridges in event of Gabriola ferry terminal.

Mr. Curtis –– 2294

Release of B.C. submission to federal Skagit hearings.

Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 2294

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce estimates On vote 125.

Mr. Chabot –– 2294

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 2297

Hon. Mr. Lauk –– 2298

Mr. Smith –– 2301

Mr. Wallace –– 2302

Hon. Mr. Lauk –– 2309

Mr. McGeer –– 2311

Hon. Mr. Lauk –– 2315

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill 75).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald –– 2316

Mr. Bennett –– 2317

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 2319

Mr. Barnes –– 2321

MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome today a group of very fine young men who are visiting from Kent, England. They are a touring rugby team. They must be fine young men; they play rugby.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to welcome the rugby gentlemen too. Also in the gallery I'm sure you will be pleased to know there is a young couple, Mr. and Mrs. Helmut Fandrich, from the great constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain. They don't eat ice cream but I believe their children do, and I'd ask the Members to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Also today in the gallery are about 15 students from a contingent of about 40 students from the University of Notre Dame located in the City of Nelson. I'd like the Members to join us in welcoming them.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Among the visitors to the gallery today, but not yet present, will be about 20 students from North Saanich Junior Secondary School. I'd like the House to know of their presence later today.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, in that unmentionable place there is one Iain Hunter, a bagpipe-loving journalist, now stationed in Ottawa but known to us all. We're delighted to see him.

Introduction of bills.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Landlord and Tenant Act.

Bill 105 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.

PHARMACY ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Cocke, Bill 106, Pharmacy Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RETENTION OF DR. McDOUGALL

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Could the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources advise the House if Dr. Ian McDougall of Dalhousie University still has an ongoing commission from the government to work on position papers in respect to the Columbia River treaty? If so, at what fee?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

COMPLETION DATE FOR.
SQUAMISH BOXCAR FACILITY

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Does the Hon. Premier have any certain date as to the completion of the B.C. Rail boxcar-building facilities in Squamish and when the first cars will roll off the assembly line?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hopefully in August.

EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS BY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer Services about the press release of April 4 which announced the department would be employing a total of 40 students during the summer. Can the Minister tell the House how many of these jobs had already been filled prior to the press release?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that 18 young people have been interviewed and accepted for these programmes.

MR. WALLACE: Had any information been made available prior to the date of the press release that these jobs would be available?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker. We were looking into research projects in line with other work we were doing in the department, and not necessarily under this programme. However, the programme arrived at a good time so we incorporated it there.

MR. WALLACE: Were there any persons in the government side of the House who were aware of these jobs prior to the press release on April 4 — MLAs in particular?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2292 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Could the Minister please indicate to the House how the candidates for the selection of these positions were chosen and how they were notified?

HON. MS. YOUNG: The bulk of the people who were interviewed were contacted at the law faculty at UBC because five of the projects have a high legal component to them. It was felt that to get the best students for these projects it would be necessary to contact them as early as possible. I believe it was done in that manner.

MRS. JORDAN: Did the House understand correctly that the Minister had previously committed her department to hire these students; then, when the vote and the statement came from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) about the $25 million for summer employment, this practice of hiring in terms of paying the students was changed? Where before they were to be paid out of your vote, they will now be paid out of the major $25 million vote.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, we had some research projects in mind and we were investigating them.

Yes, the summer programme arrived about simultaneously as we were designing the projects we had in mind relative to product testing and to trade practices throughout the province.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In essence you now have 18 vacancies in your vote that are being filled under this other payment programme.

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker, those are permanent positions that you are referring to under our vote, but we have funds in the vote, if you recall, for research projects and for….

MRS. JORDAN: You're now paying them out of the other fund.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, we have requested this.

PLANS TO FREEZE
SELLING PRICE OF HOMES

MR. CURTIS: In light of widespread rumours concerning possible provincial government action to limit or freeze the sale price of homes and other residential property, would the Premier indicate if this matter is under consideration at the present time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question has been answered already.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think it's important, Mr. Speaker. Those widespread rumours exist because certain Members don't attend the House. It's been stated twice in this House, once by the Minister and once by me, that there is no truth in that rumour. Attendance by the Members would help scotch that rumour.

REQUESTS FROM EGG PRODUCERS TO
RESTRAIN MARKETING BOARD PROCEEDINGS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker: has the Minister received any requests from egg producers to prohibit the marketing board from initiating proceedings for unpaid levies?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Not since October or whatever the date was in 1972.

FEE PAID TO McDOUGALL
FOR WORK ON COLUMBIA TREATY

MR. CHABOT: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: could he tell me what consultant fee was paid to Dr. McDougall for the work he undertook on behalf of the government relative to the Columbia River Treaty?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The work, Mr. Speaker, was undertaken for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, the Crown corporation. I suggest a question on the order paper might be most appropriate.

MR. CHABOT: One supplementary question: could the Minister advise whether or not Dr. McDougall is related in any way to General A.G.L. McNaughton and what that relationship might be?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He's the late general's grandson, Mr. Speaker.

LANDINGS OF GOVERNMENT JETS
AT STRIKE-BOUND AIRPORTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications: are provincial government Citation jets landing at airports in the province where firefighting services have been withdrawn?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's my understanding that they have been, and it was on the understanding that planes under 25,000 pounds were allowed to land. As a matter of fact, I was on one of them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right, you were.

[ Page 2293 ]

May I ask the Minister of Labour what steps he intends to take to curb this strike-breaking by provincial government cabinet Ministers and the Department of Transport and Communications. (Laughter.)

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I'd like to comment, Mr. Speaker, that I'm certainly pleased to see the Liberal Party at long last concerned about strike-breaking. I want to assure the Member, Mr. Speaker, that if I receive representation from the federal government, under whose jurisdiction this dispute resides, I would certainly consider any assistance we could give.

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION 21
TO PERMIT DEBATE ON SKAGIT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question for the Hon. Member for Alberni. In view of the extreme importance of the question of the Skagit Valley and in view of the fact that the rules of the House as they stand at the moment prevent us from discussing that issue on the estimates of the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) because of the Hon. Member's motion, would he consider asking leave of the House to withdraw for the time being his motion 21?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that that is a permitted question, in that it's the right of every Member to have on the order paper any matter he wishes without being attacked for having it there. I know that the Hon. Member is not attacking him for having it there, but it's a right without question.

EGG MARKETING BOARD ORDER
FOR PAYMENT OF LEVIES

MR. WALLACE: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can tell the House if the Egg Marketing Board has ordered six northern egg producers to pay back levies or face court action?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I've received no such information, Mr. Speaker, but it could have happened.

MR. WALLACE: Well, a supplemental question: has the Minister received a written request from the Northern B.C. Egg Producers Association to prohibit the marketing board from taking action?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Unless something has come in more recently than I have seen, I've had no such request for at least six months.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
ON OMI LANDS IN MISSION

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Housing. The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) is reported in the Fraser Valley Record as advising Mission council that housing development on OMI lands will be two years away. Has the Minister a timetable which would see development this year?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There's no timetable that's been set on that. Negotiations or discussions are proceeding between Dunhill Developments and the city, I believe. I might point out that if that information came from a press release, there were many things which were erroneous in that press release.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: does the Minister have full cooperation from Mission council on this project or are there some unresolved questions? If so, what are those unresolved questions?

MR. SPEAKER: One at a time, please.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think there are some unresolved questions. It would be somewhat presumptuous of me to say what some of the hesitations held by the council or their advisers are. I think that one of the biggest holdups is that they have not had a planner. We are presently looking at ways and means in which we could assist them in the retention of a planner, perhaps on an interim basis.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Supplementary on the same subject: in view of the fact that the Mission council refused Dunhill Developments, both before and after the government takeover, a land-use contract, would you comment on a statement by Mayor Harris of Mission that the Minister applied pressure to overrule council? Is this statement by Mayor Harris true?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: As I said earlier, I think that some of the reporting there…. I was phoned up by a reporter who requested information. He gave me interpretations of what Mayor Harris has said and I was not going to get into an "I said, he said" type of a situation over the phone with a press member who for all I know was not even a member of the press, and that's been known to happen before. The Member for Dewdney has been in touch with Mayor Harris since then and I believe there was some misunderstanding reported in that incident.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, just a quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is it true, then, that the

[ Page 2294 ]

government plans to go ahead with this development despite the fact that the development has twice been refused a land-use contract by the municipality of Mission?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, as I say, probably the major reason that was put forward at that meeting was that they did not have a planner at that time. They felt it would take two months to hire a planner and probably a further two months for the planner to acclimatize himself to the Mission area so that he could make some positive input into this thing.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary: does the Minister of Housing or anyone in his department or Dunhill have an application to remove any portion of these lands from the land freeze?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We're awaiting the decision of the Land Commission on this.

MRS. JORDAN: You do have an application?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, I don't say that we have an application in there — not that I'm aware of. I would have to take that question as notice.

SELECTION OF FRASER
VALLEY COLLEGE COUNCIL

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): To the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: what progress can be reported on the formation of the college council for the Fraser Valley College?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Four or five school boards have sent in their recommendations for the person they wish to represent them. We're waiting for the fifth board. As soon as that comes in then the cabinet will appoint theirs and that will be ready to go.

MR. SCHROEDER: Supplementary: is a principal being considered?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The principal can't be considered until the college council is formed.

MR. SCHROEDER: Further supplementary: will the native people be represented on that council?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they will be.

PLANS FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES
IN EVENT OF GABRIOLA FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways: would the Minister indicate if any senior member of his department is involved in preliminary planning for roads and/or bridges which would be required on Gabriola Island or adjacent islands in the event that a major ferry terminal is established on Gabriola Island?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, my department is actively involved in looking at the routes mentioned in case a decision is made within the Department of Transport and Communications.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary on the question: is such a route likely to involve Mudge Island?

HON. MR. LEA: I would take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

RELEASE OF B.C. SUBMISSION
TO FEDERAL SKAGIT HEARINGS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Speaker: when will the B.C. submission to the Federal Power hearings on Skagit be made public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As I indicated last week, I expect to make a statement at the beginning of this week, so it's fairly shortly, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE
(continued)

On vote 125: Minister's office, $75,976.49.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I have just a few brief questions to the Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) as well as a few brief corrections of statements he made on Friday last.

In replying to a question put to him regarding the amount of capital expenditure and capital investment in the province, the Minister stated as follows:

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…. I'm sorry, I'm talking about Gross Provincial Product. Capital investment is 103 per cent; it was over $4 billion last year.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) questioned that 103 per cent and the Minister confirmed it was 103 per cent. The Member for

[ Page 2295 ]

Columbia River interjected again and said "No way."

When I look at your annual report, "The British Columbia Summary of Economic Activities for 1973," on page 42 regarding capital investment I find the following statement:

"In 1973, new capital and repair expenditures in British Columbia rose by approximately 10 per cent over the corresponding level of spending in 1972. Intended expenditures in the province are reported to total $4.1 billion, relative to $3.76 billion for 1972."

That's 10 per cent. That's a vast difference between 10 per cent and 103 per cent increase in capital investment in the province. I'd hoped at the time that the Minister would state to us that he'd made a serious error in confirming these percentage increases in the Legislature last Friday, but he didn't see fit to do so. All that this increase in capital investment in the province really does is take care of the inflationary spiral that took place in 1973. In other words, the capital investment record for 1973 is nil as compared to 1972.

Now, we did discuss on Friday last just very briefly the question of trade missions around the world. In view of the fact that the Province of Ontario has a great variety of trade missions proposed for this year — they have 200, in fact, coming out of that province to explore for new markets for the sale of their products in the world markets — I'm wondering if the Minister could tell us what type of products his department is attempting to establish markets for, what areas in the world, what numbers of trade missions he has projected for the forthcoming year.

Question number two is one dealing with advertising in your department. I notice a lot of advertising coming out of your department. I want to know how effective it is and whether it's doing the intended job that it's supposed to do. I see here one in particular that caught my imagination and caught my eye. It was the B.C. Affairs, winter of 1973, and it was headed: "If you have an unconventional business idea, maybe you should talk to an unconventional government." Well, I'll have to agree that that statement is true — it is an unconventional government we're dealing with. Lo and behold, not only do we have the Minister's name boldly imprinted at the bottom of this ad, but we have the picture of the Premier, which goes to show how unconventional that government over there is.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Send it over and I'll autograph it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: It's not a bad picture, but the people to whom the Premier is talking are not looking very happy. They're looking suspicious. They have fear, they have apprehension in their hearts.

But talking about unconventional government, certainly you have an unconventional government. Look at the terror tactics you used in the takeover of Plateau Mills in Vanderhoof. That's unconventional. You better believe it is. Look at the type of procedure you used in the taking over of Kootenay Forest Products, which Crestbrook Forest Industries of the East Kootenays had attempted to secure for an assured supply of wood chips in order to expand their mill to make it an economically viable unit. What did you do? You took over the mill. You didn't give these people an opportunity to make an economic, viable unit in the East Kootenays. Is this your direction — to take over every time some firm becomes available, by shutting out the possibility of someone securing an assured supply of raw material? Is that the approach?

Then you have the audacity to travel to Japan, because after all the majority interest in Crestbrook rests in the hands of people from Japan. Then in turn, you turn around and say you're going to have a trade mission — a trade junket to Japan — to attract investment capital to British Columbia. What do you think the takeover of Kootenay Forest Products by your government is going to do with your relationship with the Japanese, who are eager to invest in not only British Columbia but in other parts of this world as well? You've denied them the opportunity of expanding their mill into an economically viable unit. That's unconventional — certainly it is.

It's fully unconventional as well for the Premier to make statements that he's going to kick the censored out of certain groups of people that come into his office. Certainly that ad is right on when it comes to being unconventional.

It's unconventional as well when you have the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) talking about tourism….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote we're considering before us?

MR. CHABOT: I am. I'm confining it to the unconventional government ad here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the remarks should be pointed to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. CHABOT: I am, Mr. Chairman. I am because that department over there carried out a study last year — unfortunately I don't have it, but it's as thick as this volume here — indicating very clearly the investment opportunities that exist in the tourist industry in British Columbia. The Minister will admit to carrying out this kind of a study.

[ Page 2296 ]

Now we find that the Minister carries out a study telling about the recreational and tourist opportunities for investment dollars in British Columbia. Yet we find another Minister saying: "Yankee go home." How more unconventional and inconsistent can you be?

Now I want to speak very briefly about the proposed trip to Japan. As I've stated just briefly a few moments ago, there is an eagerness on the part of Japanese capital to find places to invest. Canada's been a relatively good location for their investment capital because they've invested approximately $300 million in Canada in the last few years, of which the majority has been invested in British Columbia, somewhere in the neighbourhood of between 60 and 70 per cent. Some of it is in mining, three pulpmills — one of which I referred to a little earlier — sawmills and one plywood plant. I'm wondering if the Minister would tell us what his intentions are when he goes to Japan to speak to the investment world over there as to what kind of industries we're attempting to attract in British Columbia and where we want the investment dollars to be directed.

We heard a lot a couple of years ago about the possibility of getting a Toyota assembly plant here in the province, but that's never materialized, even though you have been given a real opportunity to do so since having formed the government. Just a word of advice — I think that when you go to Japan you have a responsibility to tell these people what your policies are and what your philosophy is as well. There appears to be a strange anxiety on the part of that government to prove that it is capable of attracting secondary industry and investment capital to develop secondary industry in British Columbia, in view of the fact it has failed so miserably on that much talked about trip to Europe and into England last summer in which they were going to get investment capital to invest in a steel plant in British Columbia. That's turned out to be a fiasco — a nothing trip.

We see that Saskatchewan now is expanding their existing mill into a major steel mill. We see the direction being taken by the Province of Alberta to establish a steel mill there. In British Columbia we don't have sufficient iron ore in this province to justify the establishment of a steel mill. If we really believe in the type of cooperation the Minister has talked about between the western provinces, maybe we should leave the steel mill operation and construction of the facilities for steel to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Maybe your efforts should be directed elsewhere, where the Japanese could come and develop some of our natural resources here at home rather than steel. Are you going to Japan because you failed so miserably in Europe and you will accept almost any deal when you get there? Is that what you are telling the people of British Columbia?

There is one other thing I think you should take into consideration when you are in Japan. You should talk about coal. Tell those people what your philosophy is regarding the natural resources of this province. We know at this time that Japan is looking to Siberia for coal; certainly they are looking to Australia. The next real market for coal shipments to Japan rests with the U.S.S.R. At the moment there is practically a formal signing of an agreement between Russia and Japan for the movement of 10 million tons of coal from Siberia commencing in 1982 or 1983.

Yet we find in British Columbia, where we have an abundance of this raw material, the only two real mines producing are in the Kootenays: Fording River Coal Limited and Kaiser which jointly have approximately 7.5 million tons of shipment per year. Yet we see the Russians will be shipping substantially more in the foreseeable future to Japan.

What is the future for coal in British Columbia? What is the future for the export of coal to Japan? What is the future of Sukunka coal which the government is supposed to have a 40 per cent interest in?

The Minister, in answering on Friday, said we are not only going over there to discuss a steel mill; we are going over there to discuss mariculture as well. On March 25, the Department of Recreation and Conservation, which has a Marine Resources Branch, talked about the allocation of dollars for a cost-sharing programme to promote and to improve the oyster industry in British Columbia. They say this in the press release of March 25:

"The two governments, represented federally by the Fisheries and Marine Service of the Department of the Environment and provincially by the Marine Resources Branch (Commercial Fisheries) of the Department of Recreation and Conservation, are hoping to further experimental programmes and to provide economic evaluation.

"The companies involved are developing new methods to increase the effectiveness of existing operations by improving the flotation systems used in the raft culture of oysters and by building a processing plant, pumping facilities and tray suspension systems to be used for the tray culture of oysters.

"With limited foreshore in British Columbia suitable for the beach culture of oysters, the success or failure of these projects could have a substantial bearing on the future of the oyster industry."

We have established the fact that we have people who are experimenting in mariculture in British Columbia. So the Minister wants to go to Japan to experiment. Maybe he could tell the House when he

[ Page 2297 ]

stands in his place just what kind of discussions will take place relative to mariculture and what type of products he is talking about. He could also tell the House just what experts from British Columbia will participate in his journey to Japan to establish the methods used in that country. Will he be taking some of these experts from the Marine Resources Branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would like to address a few questions to the Minister. However, I might say I was grateful to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for referring to that ad which appeared on unconventional businesses. It might occur to some people that nobody would respond to that ad, but the shareholders of Dunhill Development did and they found that it really works. If you have an unconventional business, this government is the one to deal with.

I thought the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was very kind on Friday when he complimented the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Charitable.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, no. Well, charitable, I suppose he was. It's true; he is a great little Minister. I think it is improper criticism for Members of the opposition to suggest, as they did last Friday, that $86,000 was being spent to provide him with some sumptuous office and so on. That is not true at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Et cetera."

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Et cetera. We could improve the stature of that Minister by just buying him elevator shoes. (Laughter.) We don't need $86,000. That would help. Maybe if that happened the Minister would be able to see his way clear to bring before this committee his annual report before we have to deal with his estimates so we can have some idea of the way in which his department has fulfilled its responsibilities. He has controlled the endeavours of the department since he assumed that responsibility.

I think the House might consider making it absolutely obligatory that Ministers do file their annual reports before coming before committee for estimates. As a matter of fact, the wisdom of just such a practice was amply disclosed when we considered the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) last week. It was an outstanding annual report which assisted the committee in the deliberations on the various votes.

I would like to pose a couple of questions to the Minister. First of all, with regard to the recently concluded agreement with the national government, the so-called DREE contract. I am speaking of the only contract that is operative, namely the one that provides for the federal government to fund with the provincial government certain survey projects connected with developments hopefully to take place in northwest, northeast and southeastern segments of this province.

As I read that agreement, all projects in which the Government of Canada will assist so far as funding is concerned must have been approved by March 31, 1974. I wish the Minister would stand in his place and tell the committee specifically the projects which were developed by the provincial government, submitted to the federal government and approved for joint financial assistance in accordance with the terms of that agreement.

I think we should also have from the Minister some indication of the groups or individuals who will be carrying out those survey projects and, to the extent he can, the timing when those projects must be complete. I notice in the agreement with the national government that no contribution will be made by the federal government for payments in respect to those projects after March 31, 1975. That would seem to indicate to me that the survey projects must be undertaken and completed by a year from now if we are to enjoy federal financial assistance in respect of that operative contract.

I would also think we should be hearing from the Minister as to what plans he and his department have with regard to development in the northwest and northeastern areas of British Columbia. The Minister has indicated that perhaps there is no hurry with some of these projects. I think we should have some clear indication of the schedule he may see for the industrialization of the north, recognizing, as I know he does, the clamour there has already been from people residing in those northern communities for some clear indication of what is to take place.

Recognizing, as I know he does, the equally loud clamour there has been from environmental groups regarding the care that must be taken before we embark upon any major industrialization, particularly in the northwest, I would like to know what schemes of development the Minister foresees and what his timing might be for those schemes to bear fruit.

Regarding the northeastern section of the province, particularly involving the Peace River, I would like to know the extent to which the Minister is also engaged in similar studies there: what the nature of industrial development in that area might be and, in particular, the extent to which that industrialization, if and when it takes place, will be of significant assistance to the agricultural community in the Peace River.

We know that there is a significant forest industry potential in the northeastern part of the province, but there is also tremendous opportunity for expansion in

[ Page 2298 ]

agriculture which would be accelerated if we could have some coexisting industrial base which would complement agriculture. I would like to know from the Minister what he sees in that regard as well.

With regard to the southeastern portion of the province and the recent announcement by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) with respect to the reservation of significant areas in that part of the province, would the Minister indicate the extent to which that reservation — particularly in the Purcell Range in those areas which are within the industrial complex or forest complex of Kootenay Forest Products — to what extent he may see that interfering with the secondary industrial development of that area?

The reason I pose these questions, Mr. Chairman, is because I seriously wonder whether or not we are perhaps expecting too much from this Minister and his department. I don't mean that as a criticism of either the Minister or his department. What concerns me — and maybe the Minister's answers can remove that concern — is that industrial development in the Province of British Columbia is being handled not by the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, as it is presently known — soon to be known as the Department of Economic Development — but in fact, Mr. Chairman, by other Ministries of this government: the office of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the office of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

I think that those four Ministers have already done more in respect of secondary industrial development of this province than the department which you would expect would have specific responsibility for that area of endeavour.

I might also mention, Mr. Chairman, that there is one other Ministry which has a very significant effect upon industrial development in this province, and that's the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). In a very special way, with his ever-expanding budget, he can bring pressures to bear and, in fact, can actually prohibit the secondary or even primary industrial development of areas of this province. I know already that steps he has taken have had a very significant impact upon the desires of the government with respect to the northeastern segment of this province.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that before we can pass the votes of this Minister, and particularly his office, he should clearly indicate to us exactly the steps that he is taking, what he expects to accomplish and how those accomplishments will affect the future industrialization of this province. He has spoken of economic diplomacy and industrial strategy — all of which are fine-sounding phrases — but unless he can indicate that he has some visions in this regard and indicate that he and his department will be able to carry them out in the face of the growing strengths of other government, it would seem to us that serious questions are raised as to whether this department should be allowed to continue.

Perhaps it should be allowed to be handled as it was in the previous administration. There was not much vision and it was of very little consequence, really. It was really controlled by the Minister of Finance. If that's what we have, Mr. Chairman, then so be it. But I don't believe that that is the role in which the Minister sees himself; and it certainly isn't the way we've been led to expect that his department, under his administration, will function.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Respecting the general development agreement, the interim planning agreement, I'll have some particulars shortly this afternoon and provide them to you. We got in under the deadline and we had planned various surveys with no difficulty by the time the interim planning agreement was signed. The terms and so on in specifics that you asked for are not yet available. We don't know who is going to do it. We don't know what the timetable is with specific surveys, but we can give you a general outline of where we plan to do the studies and what for.

With respect to the northwest and the northeast, in particular the northwest, a great deal of discussion and dialogue has been taking place. We recently have ordered a study through the Environment and Land Use Secretariat to determine the social impact of various changes in terms of industrial development on the communities in the northwest. We hope to have those kinds of studies on stream. Within the next several months — over, let's say, the summer period into the fall — various decisions of a development nature can be made as interim reports from that study occur.

In other words, I don't foresee that we will have to wait for the impact study of the secretariat to be completed before we start making definite steps in that area. I wouldn't like to say specifically where and how. I think a glance at the economic picture of the northwest should indicate to you as a student of economy that perhaps we would have to do something about Eurocan and a supply of chips.

We're going to have to do something about transportation in a real way. You know of the negotiations that have been going on between this province and the federal government with respect to the CNR. You know about the philosophies and the arguments surrounding the development of Prince Rupert as a port. These things will be continuing and hopefully will be resolved.

With respect to the northeast, I will be tabling a preliminary survey report sometime in late May or

[ Page 2299 ]

early June from which specific studies of a short-term nature — I mean of weeks in duration — will take place. A specific subsidiary agreement will be signed, hopefully before the end of the year, with respect to the northeast area. I am talking about DREE and ourselves.

I am tabling the survey study to encourage discussion from the people of that area and from other people who are interested in the development of that area and who respond to some of the things that we, as a department, say should be there. That dialogue I don't think has to go on forever, but it has to go on. The feedback, I feel, is particularly important. There is a handful of people up there, comparatively speaking, for a vast area of land, but they have a say in the kind of changes that are going to take place there. We want to encourage them to participate.

It is interesting to note when you discuss the northeast area about agriculture...it is difficult. There is potential for foraging and so on which we have recognized through some support of a dehy plant there. I don't know where that will go. They have had seven crop failures in recent years; the climatic condition is not good. But there is an argument that agricultural potential is there, and perhaps that should be pursued. I won't anticipate what the preliminary survey report will have to say.

I think you are quite correct that the Department of Finance, the Department of Resources, as I call them, under the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Department of Recreation and Conservation — to a certain extent, Highways, and to a considerable extent Health; Human Resources must certainly play its role…. What you are saying is that economic development really today in 1974 is a project that concerns every department.

I don't feel in any way stripped of any power or authority in having those Ministries actively involved, indeed leading in many respects. I haven't got the kind of ego problem that others may have in terms of this kind of activity. I'd like to think that we're operating as a team — and that we have been doing. Certainly very few decisions are made…no economic development decisions are made without my advice and I'm delighted that I am called upon to play that kind of a role.

As far as stature is concerned — which you mentioned earlier — someone was telling me that diamonds are very small. Dynamite comes in small packages. (Laughter.) You can take your pick; I'm not sure. There are many short people who I've met who I've been very, very proud to know. Tommy Douglas is a very good person to be in company with, and I'm just a bit taller than Tommy Douglas. You know, when you're talking about height, I'm a little bit saddened by people, and I'm not suggesting the Hon. Member is one of them, whose only stature is in their height. That is a difficult thing to accept.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) quite rightly pointed out that when I was getting carried away with myself last Friday I said there was a capital investment jump of 103 per cent. That would indeed have been a surprise to most everyone in Canada. What I meant to say was 10.3 per cent. It rose 10.3 per cent to approximately $4.1 billion.

It's significant however — the Hon. Member will, of course, recall in his reading of the previous statistics on the matter — that the last year of the Social Credit administration had minus 5.1 per cent growth in capital investments. It declined on an overall percentage basis in 1972. I would agree with the Hon. Member that there are these fluctuations which occur and do not necessarily reflect the kind of government that's in power one way or the other.

In terms of the inflationary spiral mentioned briefly by the Hon. Member for Columbia River, and the call on myself by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) as to what vision I have, particularly where this province is going, there are a number of important things that occur to me. One is the primary resource extraction economy, such as the one we have, which is really at the whim of the global market situation. We are subject to many, many things over which we have little or no control — shipping, market penetration, foreign exchange and so on.

It appears to me that if we are to take control over our economic destiny there must be a shift, perhaps not as dramatic as you and I would like but a shift nevertheless, towards a more industrial-based economy which means added value to our primary resources, which means developing new industries within the province. And this is not to say that we can do this in a few months or even a few years.

I think some of the decisions that we make today will affect how this takes place over the next several years. One of those decisions is cooperation between the four western provinces. We have to rationalize this tremendous problem of transportation, that horrible spaghetti that we have in the whole western region — transportation costs, rationalization of the use of our raw materials. It seems to me that if the four western provinces cannot cooperate on that basis, then we have no business cooperating on any other basis. I think we can cooperate and I'm quite hopeful that we can.

Another decision is a trading corporation. Although I feel that a trading corporation in the first two or three years would not have a significant impact in the global situation, we will be able through a trading corporation and merchant banking on an international basis to control to some extent market

[ Page 2300 ]

penetration in the Pacific Rim — costs of shipping and transportation over water. We would be able to rationalize the use of raw materials from other countries. I look forward to that kind of decision-making. As specifically what, perhaps in keeping with regionalization or decentralizing industry…. Again I'm not saying that this is possible or what I would consider desirable. I would consider that some steps can be made to decentralize industry in that at least we can encourage new industry, a certain base in technology, to locate in various areas.

In keeping with that, in attracting new industry, specifically I say that we must move towards the fabrication and smelting of our non-ferrous metals. Where that is going to lead us I don't know. The economy involved is a subtle one, in my view. We are the only jurisdiction that is the major producer, one of the top major producers, of copper concentrate without a copper smelter. Zambia, for example, has a copper smelter. Again because it's 1974 and the issue of environment is paramount in everyone's mind, not only on this side of this House, we have to look carefully about location. But I think it's just a question of location, not a question of whether we should. I think that we should. I think it's the policy of this government to develop in some way the fabrication of our non-ferrous metals here. Those are decisions that can be made and steps can be taken to ensure that it occurs.

Steel production is another thing. I'm not saying for a moment that we should have primary production steel plants of the blast furnace type that would be polluting the atmosphere. We may need one. With modern technology I am told and I am instructed that perhaps we can build one that's relatively clean and tolerable for the kind of environment we're used to in British Columbia. Again location is a decision to be made.

We may not necessarily have to go that route. We could, perhaps, start with the tertiary steel production base which is by far the more labour intensive and less capital intensive. Those are routes and decisions that can be made within the next few months to steer this province towards a more industrial base and a more stable economy and to ensure that the people of British Columbia, not next year or the year after, but in 10 years can say that if the world is all right economically, we will be too.

Referring back again to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). I mentioned the kitchen cabinets, a trade mission, when you questioned me. What do we have projected? We have several things projected. I do not like to make specific announcements about where we're going on that.

But we had a sawmilling equipment trade mission, and we had a kitchen cabinet thing. We're not hard pressed to find the kind of British Columbia products that are worth selling because they're all great products in this beautiful Province of British Columbia. Take your pick; we'll be having a trade mission. If they're as successful as the kitchen cabinet one and as the other one seems to be, then we should continue them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now as far as mariculture is concerned, the Hon. Member, I know, personally has a great interest in oysters (Laughter) and consumes perhaps more oysters than anybody, I think, in western Canada. (Laughter.) I hope my colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is most interested in oysters as well. His department is carrying on surveys and studies with respect to the production of that kind of food here in British Columbia.

Mariculture, generally speaking, is what he and I together are going to be looking at — everything in the sea, products of the sea. I think the Japanese are famous for versatility and ingenuity in the use of food from the sea. The time will come around when British Columbians should be seriously thinking on those terms. This is an initial step, a start toward that.

I think the Hon. Member is quite correct in many of the things he says. I have to sit here and I'm just a little bit discomforted because the Hon. Member for Columbia River doesn't have the kind of facts or information about steel production or coal which I've recently been made aware of.

It is clear that in the long-term interest of British Columbia, to process raw materials and raw resources to create a secondary industry will be the goal that we will have to proceed along.

The steel industry offers many opportunities. It's of considerable importance to this province in the construction of railways, bridges, ships, barges, buildings and so on. Certainly in the last year we've learned a great deal about steel shortages and what they can do to the economy of British Columbia. The construction industry is perhaps the most obvious example. Many commodities here will suffer because we don't have a secure supply of steel and there are several ways that we can secure that supply of steel.

I'll say no more than to say that the government is aware of the existence of a very significant reserve of coking coal in British Columbia of several billion tons, and this is a matter of great importance to the world's steel producers.

This is especially so in view of the existence of facilities to transport and load this coal. Many of the broad development plans presently being considered by the government are geared to increasing the capacity of the province to make these resources available to steel producers of the world. The government regards the continuing dynamic

[ Page 2301 ]

development of the steel industry in the world as an essential ingredient to the economic growth of British Columbia, and therefore will seek to establish the most positive relationship with our trading partners and suppliers.

I read that statement because I wanted to be clear about the language. We will be discussing coking coal in Japan.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I wanted to direct a few questions to the Minister, particularly since we've got involved in this matter of the DREE agreement between the provincial government and the federal government which I understand, as I read it, is a general development agreement signed on March 28 and covers a period up until March 31, 1984, unless it is terminated by mutual agreement.

We've heard described in the House the areas that are subject to the agreement, and they're roughly described as northwest and northeast British Columbia and the Kootenays. Of course, one of the things that becomes apparent as you read the agreement is the fact that this is very general. There's nothing specific in the agreement, or definitive, and the projects to be undertaken, while they may be known in the mind of the Minister at the present time, or he may have priorities in mind, are certainly not general knowledge to the Members of this House.

Further, I suppose that the Minister is not in a position to indicate fully whether the projects will be approved or not until such time as he enters into a subsidiary agreement with the federal government and they have been signed by them.

But I do believe that the Minister must be aware of the fact that until some of these specific questions are answered, the people and the areas who will be involved in this DREE agreement are very handicapped in planning any future work they may wish to do, or development that they would like to attract into the area.

I'd like to know, for example, under the DREE agreement what types of programmes the Minister envisages. Will it cover what I would basically refer to as "people services"? For instance, will the programme cover the capital costs of new housing developments, new hospitals, or additions to hospitals, new recreational facilities, new schools, transportation corridors, servicing, utility services — particularly in new and expanding areas?

I think the Minister is well aware of the fact that the regional district of the Peace-Liard has been a very active regional board, one of the most active in the province. They have probably done more to get a consensus of opinion in a very large, widespread area than any other group in the Province of British Columbia.

I can recall in the initial meetings of that board that it was almost impossible to get the appointed board members to sit down and talk to one another because of very partisan thinking. That has almost disappeared. I'd say it has disappeared now, due to the type of people who are elected to the board and, I think, due a great deal to the successive chairmen that they have appointed at different times, who have worked very hard to overcome these differences. As a result of that they have made some very concrete moves that have been beneficial to all the Peace-Liard region.

It is no secret that they are very concerned about additional hospital construction in the whole Peace-Liard region now. They have put a referendum to the taxpayers, which was approved — not in the amount they would have liked, but in a much lesser amount. So they would be very interested in knowing, Mr. Minister, if the anticipated additional hospital construction or any new construction that may be required in that region will be subject to a subsidiary agreement between yourselves and DREE, not only because of the work that it will entail and the jobs that will be created by that, but also by the fact that if DREE money is involved, naturally the amount that they will have to raise locally through the regional district is much reduced, or greatly reduced.

So they are concerned, and rightly so. But I'm not sure, Mr. Minister, that they can wait indefinitely for an answer. What they would also like to know is: if you cannot at this time give them a definitive statement as to the position they are in, will any future agreements that you enter into be retroactive to the time of signing the agreement, which is basically March of this year? So if they do go ahead and plan the additions they must have if they are going to provide the people services that we require in that part of the country, and they somehow get them off the ground, would the subsidiary agreements, if signed, between yourself as a representative of the Government of B.C. and the federal government be retroactive to March, 1974?

I think that if we wish to develop in a reasonable manner programmes which would qualify under DREE, or attract industry, then we must have some general guidelines. I'd like to know also if the Minister has a list of priorities in mind with respect to projects and agreements that may be consummated between yourself and the federal government. Has he any idea of the new industries which might be encouraged to establish themselves in the northern part of the British Columbia?

Certainly from my experience it is not an overnight proposition, when you go to talk to the industries which may have capital that is required to provide for expansion. Many of the projects that have been rumoured and talked about three, four or five years ago are now just starting to come on stream; so it is not an immediate thing. And it is something that

[ Page 2302 ]

the people in the area, in order to be effective, particularly those in the regional district, must have some information about.

So if there is a general government policy with respect to the type of programmes that will be potentially developed under a DREE agreement, then I think we have a right, as Members of this House, to know the Minister's position in that respect.

The Minister has mentioned the coal reserves in British Columbia. Certainly they are of a great magnitude and will become of great importance to the province as years go by. Close to our own area of the province, in northeastern B.C., we think of the Sukunka coal development. I wonder if the Minister has anything further to report to the House with respect to the development of that particular mine out in the Sukunka area.

The potential for agriculture is certainly a great one yet in northeastern British Columbia, and I think that you will see the general farm economy greatly improved in the next year or two, basically because of the price of grain today. It is no secret that for a number of years the farmers in northeastern British Columbia have had to compete against Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the right to sell a lot of grain — at least they had to compete with them on a price basis. They couldn't demand any more for their grain in northeastern British Columbia than the prairie provinces received. This put us at a disadvantage up there from the standpoint that the inputs in agriculture are much higher in northeastern British Columbia. You have to invest more money. It's a developing area where development costs are high.

With the price of grain increasing the way it has in the last year — and the markets look good from the standpoint of exports for the next several years — it's going to be of much greater encouragement to farmers than ever before to effectively farm and plan that if they do have the good fortune to pull down a good crop in any one year, they will be reimbursed in a manner that will at least return to them all their investment costs and perhaps a little bit of profit besides.

I think that picture is beginning to brighten up, Mr. Minister. That's why I think we should encourage people in the agricultural industry at this particular time, because we have been told for years that there would be a shortage of food products throughout the world. It's happening far faster than any of us really anticipated it would happen.

One major crop failure in western Canada or the United States could put us into a very precarious position with respect to not only our export contracts but with respect to many hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, who depend upon the grain we grow for their livelihood. We're entering that phase much quicker than some people anticipated.

I do want the Minister to comment to whatever extent he feels he can at this particular time on the overall impact. The Peace River-Liard Regional District have done a great deal of planning. They're very energetic and they're very concerned about the projects they would like to see developed both now and in the next year or two. They're particularly concerned right now about hospital services and whether a capital programme will be included in any subsidiary agreement with the DREE organization sponsored by the federal government. Perhaps the Minister could comment on those particular points.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to deal with one or two specifics and also talk in general terms about the balance this province will have to set in its planning to achieve two goals: industrial development compatible with the standards of environmental protection which the people of this province are very keen to preserve.

First of all, I'd like to ask the Minister about one particular situation I have here with a local firm back in the summer of 1972. That was quite a summer as the Minister remembers. The firm was given authority by the Crown corporation in Indonesia to seek contracts for at least four tankers and quite likely four others. This was backed by a major investment group with lots of dollars which gave this local agent authority to start negotiations with shipyards to build four tankers. I understand that under the federal subsidy with the initials STAP there would be a 17 per cent subsidy from the federal government.

We hear so much about industrial expansion in British Columbia and unemployment and skilled workers looking for jobs. Here this company sought bids from Japan, Norway, Holland, West Germany, and they went from every shipyard from Halifax to British Columbia. What do they discover? They discover that every shipyard in eastern Canada has contracts up to around 1978-79. At that time, this agent went to the B.C. shipyards which were engaged in what the agent tells me were small-time, short-term contracts and found they were really waiting for the B.C. Ferries contracts.

Understand that this agent, who had the authority to award the bid, provided facts, figures, names and plans to the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. If British Columbia had been awarded this contract, there would have been continuous full-time employment in the shipyards for something on the order of four to five years. In fact, the work force might have had to be supplemented by trainees from BCIT. Perhaps the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) would have been interested to know that on-the-job training could have been provided for the vocational institutes.

One of the snags was that some extended ways

[ Page 2303 ]

would have had to be built in the shipyards, costing around $3 million. But the long-term investment and the potential to attract contracts for ship building from many parts of the world for many years ahead was a very obvious and attractive possibility. One suggestion put forward for the extension of the ways would be that it could be done by the provincial government and leased to shipbuilders then and in the future. The interesting thing is that this agent hasn't yet had a reply from the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

To finish the story, the four ships are being built in Japan. The first one was just launched last week. I well remember the Premier in one of his arm-waving moments in this House on a debate on unemployment using the usual political device of passing the buck to the federal government when he talked about the fact that the former administration had not utilized the federal subsidies available for ship building. When he was defending the government's position on the unemployment issue, he talked about the tremendous potential for ship building in this province and that we should cooperate with the federal government to create a Canadian federal marine service.

I would just like to ask the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce if it's no longer the policy of this government to utilize shipyard facilities. Are we going to consider enlarging them? It seems from the ever-increasing volume of world trade that cargo ships and tankers will be in ever-increasing demand. As I say, the shipyards in eastern Canada have work to keep them going for four or five years.

One of the more ironic aspects of the point I'm raising is that I understand in recent months the Minister sent a trade mission to Indonesia looking for work, looking to see if we could sell Canadian expertise and B.C. products. Here we had the potential to have been building four tankers and providing jobs for four or five years. But no. Apparently not only did the department reject the offer but the agent who was trying to get the contract for B.C. workers hasn't even had a reply in writing from the department on the approach.

The agent mentioned to me that, in building ships on the west coast, it's not even unreasonable to import the steel from other countries because of the tremendous differential in freight rates to transport the steel from eastern Canada to British Columbia. From Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal it's about $13 a ton and from Sault Ste. Marie to British Columbia it's $23 a ton — or figures in that range which he quoted.

I thought the settlement at this recent energy conference in Ottawa where the western provinces tried to establish their identity was to be some kind of sawoff. Western oil would be readily available to eastern Canada provided eastern Canada stopped its attitude towards the freight rates on goods being transported to British Columbia. Can the Minister tell us: has the department any commitment as to an improvement of the freight rate situation from the federal government? If so, by what date? What kind of percentage improvement are we talking about?

There's been a great deal of discussion about the viability or otherwise of a steel mill in British Columbia. It's obviously a very complicated matter; I don't think any one of us in this House should be unaware of all the complicated pros and cons involved. But time and time again, from experts and from people with a great deal of experience, I understand that eastern Canada has purposely maintained a system of differential freight rates which makes it very difficult for products to be manufactured here and transported east or for the cost of steel to be transported from the east to British Columbia.

I wonder first of all if the Minister could give us some information about this tanker bid that was, for whatever reasons, not accepted. I would like to know in particular if the tanker bid was not entertained even in part because the decision was made to keep the yards available for building the B.C. ferries.

Secondly, I would like to know if there are any plans or any consultations going on with the ship-building firms in British Columbia to provide or expand the necessary facilities. I certainly get the impression from talking to this very experienced marine consultant that this is just the first situation of many whereby there will be other such contracts going a-begging, particularly in the next few years.

He felt quite confident that if we had been able to build the first four ships this time around, there was a real possibility that if the contracts were well-met and the workmanship and the deadlines were met, it would be quite likely the yards in British Columbia would have got the second bunch of four ships.

We often talk in this House in general terms that we must expand our capacity in this respect or another, and we must use all our skilled people and so on. This makes a lot of sense, but here is a clear, specific example where apparently we turned away from British Columbia a tremendous contract in building ships. I wonder if the Minister would just tell us if this trade mission that went to Indonesia had ship building as one of the items on the agenda.

One of the subjects which hasn't been mentioned to any great degree in this debate so far is the whole question of port development. I know that the federal and provincial governments have come to some agreement in the development of Prince Rupert and the necessary railway changes and extensions that will have to be built. But the Minister has not been very specific in grasping what is a very obvious major problem in British Columbia. He has not given the House any kind of master plan which ties in railway and road access to the major port in the lower

[ Page 2304 ]

mainland, nor has he said to what degree Vancouver will ultimately become unable to cope with the demands and that there should be another major port facility created to meet the demand of the super cargo ships.

The Minister has made it plain that the success of the producer depends on the efficiency of the port in a large measure. The quicker the turn around, the more effective the port and the benefits to everyone in the economy.

I know that Vancouver harbour has had its controversies over the years — even the years that I have lived in British Columbia. There have been a lot of conflicting statements by federal politicians like Jack Davis and Paul Hellyer back in 1968. And there have been various study committees, I understand, but each time there seems to be no long-term vision; there is no appreciation of the vital nature of developing a modern superport.

In 1973, Mr. Chairman, Vancouver harbour increased its tonnage handled by 15 per cent — it went from 36.7 million tons to 44 million tons. Somewhere along the line it was announced, and I would like the Minister to confirm or refute this, that there was to be a $20 million general cargo terminal built on the North Shore in 1975. This was announced by the port manager in July of last year.

The point I am trying to get at is that Vancouver harbour has some very definite limitations in the light of modern transportation trends with extremely large ships, the danger of collisions and oil-spills and so on. I understand that the maximum entrance depth in Vancouver harbour is 50 feet which limits ships to the size of around 80,000 tons, and the drydock capacity is limited. There is one single channel of entry and a considerable risk of collision. We had a recent collision, as we all remember, of two ships within the inlet on a bright, moonlight night when there should have been no communication problems. The harbour is surrounded on both sides by mainly residential and business districts with little room for industrial expansion. The road and rail access is limited and congested which will only get worse as the demands on the harbour for more ships and bigger ships progress. Of course, we have the whole business of a third crossing to the North Shore to keep in mind.

Therefore, we have a harbour increasing its turnover by a substantial amount — 15 per cent a year — with some very distinct limitations. As I say, it certainly can't handle the super cargo ships that the Japanese yards are building.

I think there really must be some kind of statement by the Minister as to what the integrated long-term planning is for a modern, adequate port on the lower mainland. I don't think we have had that outline. I know the Minister has talked about it at different times in part, but of course just creating a harbour isn't the only challenge. There is the problem, which the Minister touched on Friday, of agricultural land which will, of necessity, have to be part of the package put together to provide the harbour and the associated industrial facilities.

While I don't agree with the way the Minister has handled the Tilbury Island situation, I think we should make it very plain, Mr. Chairman, that this large, modern port is an absolute must in the future successful industrial planning for British Columbia. As the Minister himself has said, there is a shortage of industrial land. Some of it in the areas that we are discussing will have to encompass what has been recently regarded as agricultural land.

The Minister is on record as saying that people will have to realize that despite Bill 42 and the land freeze, it was not designed to preserve all farmland. In a quote from The Vancouver Sun of February 14, the Minister is reported as having said in referring to environmentalists, particularly the Sierra Club who were disturbed about the conversion of farmland to industrial use:

"These people have to realize that the Land Commission Act was not intended to preserve every square inch of farmland in perpetuity but was designed to stem the tremendous tide of development."

This may well be so, but it certainly is unfortunate that where the government in its land-use policies has been, I think, very severe and very stern regarding the land use by individuals — and there has been a rather tedious attempt to have non-agricultural land which was wrongly frozen taken out of the land reserve — it is rather unfortunate that the government to suit itself appears to be able to act differently in its own interests than it does in the interests of individual citizens.

Regardless of the Minister's justification for acquiring that site, it is certainly disturbing that there appears to have been little or no consultation, as to the environmental impact, between the Minister and the people concerned.

The environmental council, on March 21, is quoted as saying that they met with the Land Commission and were astonished to discover that the Land Commission had not even been contacted by Mr. Lauk on any aspect of the development. It was clear that the Land Commission, given a mandate to bring about rational development of land use in the province, had been kept in the dark by Mr. Lauk, and the Department of Agriculture had been overruled at the cabinet level by industrial interests over the prime use of agricultural land on Tilbury and Crescent Islands.

As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, it may well be that the government has to use some agricultural land because of its specific location in relation to the need for a port and an industrial site. I hope that the

[ Page 2305 ]

Minister can probably make that quite clear to all and sundry, because the question and the need for a large, modern port will only grow as each year goes by.

Of course, in relationship to that, the question is: does the Minister intend to use Roberts Bank as the site for the expansion of the existing port facilities there to become the superport for British Columbia?

There again, as I said, we need some kind of master plan, because I am sure the people of B.C. want to be a part of the plan. They have made it very plain — not just environmentalists but ordinary citizens — that they want some attempt to preserve greenbelts to have some open space and recreational facilities and that whatever residential community is built should be given top priority in the planning. Not the least of that is that road and rail access to the port and the industrial facility would be rapid transit.

As part of this planning, can the Minister tell us whether, in fact, in the long haul there will be phasing out of Vancouver harbour? Presumably if the superport is to be built, let us say at Roberts Bank, then the whole question of the third crossing of Burrard Inlet takes on a different complexion if, in fact, the greater use of Vancouver harbour as a port would be phased out over the next 15 or 20 years or whatever. Perhaps the Minister could tell us to what degree he has plans of this nature in mind.

This all costs money. I would like to know to what degree the Minister has discussed this port development with the federal government. I looked up the figures and the federal government put $300 million into the St. Lawrence Seaway. That money was put in to provide facilities for less than the annual tonnage that goes through Vancouver harbour. In 1974 dollars, that's about equivalent to about $700 million.

It would seem to me that since the west coast, and particularly this port facility in British Columbia, is to be so vital an outlet for our resources, surely we should get a very sympathetic ear from the federal government. Could the Minister tell us to what degree he has asked for money from the federal government and where the negotiations are at the present time?

It would seem also, Mr. Chairman, that if Vancouver harbour could be phased out in the long run there would certainly be some waterfront lands which could be used for relatively high-density housing such as being planned at False Creek. So I think the two — the proposed new super harbour and the existing Vancouver harbour — have to be seen in combination. While one is created and expanded to meet modern needs the existing Vancouver harbour can be reduced in its capacity and its use.

[Mr. Gorst in the chair.]

In trying to get this point across, Mr. Chairman, I have an interesting quote from the executive vice-president of Canadian Importers Association, Mr. Keith Dickson. He said: "At present it is nearly as quick and certainly as competitive in price to ship from Japan to Toronto or Montreal via New York rather than Vancouver." It would seem to me that if that is correct — and he's the vice-president of the Canadian Importers Association and I would assume that he really knows what he's talking about — it seems that there's some real bottleneck or inefficiency or perhaps simply inadequacy of the facilities in the harbour of Vancouver to permit him to make such a statement.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, in another respect I notice that there seems little doubt that Seattle, by forging ahead with efficient cranes and container facilities, is certainly taking a great deal of the ships into Seattle harbour compared to Vancouver. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that if Vancouver harbour is strained to its capacity and is inefficient, not only is it reasonable that these shipping authorities should use Seattle but it would make the situation only more difficult if they were to come to Vancouver.

There was a very interesting article back in the Sun in November which made it quite clear that the port of Seattle is outdoing the port of Vancouver. So once again I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on his plans for the existing harbour and the potentially new harbour of the extension of Roberts Bank.

Related to the port facility, I wonder if the Minister could tell us what plans there are to correct the problem in the Fraser Canyon. I understand that in the region of Boston Bar some geologists have some concern about a particular mountain where there is a potential danger for a slide. The federal government, I understand, is aware of this. The fact is that if some slide blocks the Fraser Canyon for any considerable length of time, then of course we have a very serious transportation problem. I understand that the demands on that particular railroad, which is almost 100 years old, are tremendous and are continuing to increase in amount, what with weather and the danger of slides.

What plans are there to provide alternative routes? I understand that the Minister has been considering two or three alternatives. To bypass it is one alternative the Minister points out. Well, perhaps when I sit down the Minister can tell us what the alternative is and how soon we can anticipate it being created. It's obvious that if the new superport is created there isn't much point in it unless we have a very efficient rail and road access system to the port. Certainly the Fraser Canyon plays a very large part in the planning for the future of that.

Also, in talking about the Vancouver harbour, I read an interesting quote from Maxwell Henderson. Everybody remembers who Maxwell Henderson is — he's the retired Auditor-General.

[ Page 2306 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't Maxwell the guy with the little hammer?

MR. WALLACE: He said that for the last two years his office was unable to certify the accounts of the National Harbours Board. That's the quote — "unable to certify." I get the impression from what he said that he couldn't make head nor tail of their figures. But he certainly couldn't sign any kind of approval or certification as to the accounts. I wonder if the Minister's aware of this and to what degree he would be concerned that something as important as the National Harbours Board can't produce a satisfactory balance sheet to keep the Auditor-General happy.

I just would like to say a few words on this question of the steel mill. I heard a very interesting broadcast on CBC on March 26 by Mr. Southworth, who stated that the main purpose of the Premier's visit to Japan, together with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce was threefold: (1) a steel mill, (2) a petrochemical complex, and (3) a car-assembly plant. I must say that I had heard of the first and third, but this was the first time I had heard of any large scale petrochemical complex, which again will require a very substantial amount of industrial land, not to mention the associated pollution.

In this respect, as in the Tilbury Island situation and as in the development in northeastern B.C., I think the people of British Columbia are wondering just how much becomes a fait accompli before the government decides to tell the people.

You know, Mr. Chairman, if you're not too busy reading the rule book….

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's okay, Scotty. I just thought I'd might be able to help you out.

MR. WALLACE: You just might.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I should tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Roy is awake again. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're in trouble.

MR. WALLACE: One of the very strong principles on which the present government was elected was that it would get rid of all the secrecy and inside dealing of the former administration and it would be an open government. There's no question that in many respects this government is more open than the former. But when we're talking about industrial development and its intimate effect on the environment, on land use, where people live, how they get to work, how they get home from work, the whole question of recreational facilities, greenbelts, and on and on, we've already heard in this debate of two or three or more very large industrial projects where the information is coming out to the public in a drip, drip, drip fashion.

Today I received a telegram with 38 signatures from a complete cross-section of occupations in Smithers. I don't intend to read out all of the names but they are: radio operator; housewife; another housewife; carpenter; prospector; mining engineer, and so on it goes. There are 38 signatures of people who are expressing their concern over the proposed Smithers "supermill," they call it. Now I don't know the details and I don't propose to pretend that I do. But I do know, Mr. Chairman, that in an ever-increasing well of public concern, people in this province are asking this government to consult with the people in the area who will be most affected by massive industrial change.

We've heard that the northeastern development plan will create 25,000 jobs. When you add the families and other people associated with the actual worker, we're talking about 75,000 people. As the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) pointed out, people mean services and facilities, homes, hospitals, schools — not to mention the actual impact on the physical development of the countryside and the preservation of the environment.

When The Vancouver Sun on December 17 obtained some information as to the scope of the proposed development, the Premier quickly retorted "No, there won't be five hydro dams." But the Premier was very careful not to say what there would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him what to say.

MR. WALLACE: Now when you move 75,000 people into a new area the question of industrial expansion, whether it's northeast or northwest, of the scope that's been discussed, must surely involve, above all other elements, the need for power. I think it's very reasonable of the people in the northeast and the northwest to be apprehensive about how much planning is going beyond the planning stage to commitment, as for example in provincial-federal arrangements for financing — and this has already happened — and in terms of railway agreements with the federal government.

All I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that there's real apprehension by many people in British Columbia. We've quoted several examples in the Tilbury Island area and northeast and northwest B.C. where there appears to be very far-reaching industrial planning by this government, with minimal consultation with the people in that area who will be most intimately affected by the planning.

[ Page 2307 ]

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I hate to disturb the caucus, but….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You haven't been to those public meetings.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm not always stumped. There's a whole sheaf of questions if you want me to read them out. I wasn't going to take a lot of time….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the meetings I'm talking about, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, are the meetings that he promised when he ran for election in 1972 between the government and the people of British Columbia before any big planning would be done. Those are the meetings I'm talking about.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we're not aware of the meetings you're talking about. You haven't asked me to appear. I've had no communication whatever in my office.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: You mean that I have to get all my invitations from the government through the newspapers? (Laughter.)

Anyway, Mr. Chairman…

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: …it's rather obvious that we've touched a nerve, that's for sure. He doth protest too much, the Premier, I think.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Regardless of that little interplay, and regardless of whether the Premier thinks I should get the invitation from the newspaper, let me say that it's becoming loud and clear when I do read the newspaper that more and more people want to know more specifically what the plans of government are, and they want to be an integral part in the planning. I really feel that that's nothing less than the duty of any modern government, and it is certainly the kind of commitment which this party made when it sought election in 1972.

One of the criticisms that was frequently voiced about the former administration was that it was insensitive to the ordinary daily needs and aspirations of people, and that in fact all it could see was dollar bills and pulp mills and money and material wealth to the disregard of the environment and the cultural and other aspects of the life of each of us.

There was a great deal of optimism when this government was elected that there would be a new era. The hon. preacher from Dewdney says "Hear, hear." Well, I hope in the same way that the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) is interested in people in one specific sense in his calling, he'll also tell his own government, his own party, that he thinks, in some of these very grandiose and extensive industrial plans for the various areas of this province, that before you go beyond a certain point of no return, maybe it would be only a matter of meeting your election promises to make sure that you consult with the people who are in these areas.

The people in Smithers have submitted information in which, as far as they've been able to gather, the planning encompasses an area of 100,000 square miles. The B.C. government is providing scant information to the citizens of the area in way of specific proposals. The plan will include a road-construction programme of approximately $500 million.

I think we should maybe state some of these figures. This will give the Minister the opportunity to tell me they're wrong, or if they're correct, maybe to give some details to the people in that region so that they can understand what's about to happen in the next few years.

A railway port development of approximately $325 million — instant towns. They ask a very legitimate question: "where will the new people for these jobs come from?" In the past instant towns have proved to be social disasters. They mention some of the new towns that are to be created: Ootsa, Takla, Groundhog, Dease Lake. They fear that these towns will fare little better than their instant predecessors.

There's the whole question of the supermills to supply chips to replace the whole logs that have been used uneconomically at the present time. Their information is that 12 new mills are planned for Burns Lake, Houston, Hazelton, Smithers and Terrace.

The B.C. Forest Service has advertised for a mill to use 180,000 cunits per year for the Burns Lake district and it goes on and on and on. But the heart of the matter is that these people are having their whole future and the area in which they live radically changed by industrial planning, and they feel very much as though they have little or no say in the matter. Maybe the Minister can tell us whether that's a valid fear and, if it is a valid fear, what he's going to do about it.

I got sidetracked somewhere when the Premier got

[ Page 2308 ]

after me. I think I was talking about the steel mill when the Premier came in. Again, there are so many elements of the future of British Columbia involved in planning a steel mill. The Minister stated some of these earlier on. I want to know whether he has in fact made a decision as to whether a steel mill is viable, by whatever method.

He gave the clear impression that we might not go to the conventional system of blast furnaces, but the implication was left that it might be viable to use the direct reduction method, which I understand means that you don't need to have a market for such a large amount of steel.

I did read recently that one of the experts in the steel business — and perhaps we couldn't call him completely unbiased since he represents Algoma Steel — said that the industry calculation is that 1 million tons of plant capacity is the bare minimum to justify the basic oxygen steel-making plant. He doesn't even agree with that; he says it's closer to 2 million tons to make it viable. But the direct reduction method permits economic output at levels below 1 million tons. The fact of the matter is that he finished up with what was very pertinent, or what I thought sounded very realistic.

Whatever way you approach it, the key is the market. You have to turn your steel into shapes people will buy; you have to have a big and growing plant to achieve the economies of scale that are your only defence against cost increases. The market is not here in British Columbia and the export scene is too unpredictable.

I think we can be fair and say this is a competitor who is speaking, Mr. Holbrook, who is the president and chairman of the Algoma Steel Corporation. He made these statements on a visit to British Columbia last October. I suppose we can look at the statement with some hesitation; maybe doubt. As the Minister interjects, he's probably worried about the future of his own company.

But nevertheless, we are dealing with enormous sums of money at stake in a steel plant; we have the natural concern of citizens about pollution and the unattractive aspects of a steel plant. The Minister, before he goes to Japan, should give us a much clearer statement of just where British Columbia is at the present time in its decision or lack of decision to build a steel mill.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made plain earlier this afternoon the initiative which Saskatchewan has taken in conjunction with the federal government. I found this a little disappointing because just quite recently the Minister had stated there was a new era of cooperation among the western provinces to try and have an integrated degree of planning of their industrial and economic future. Now we're going to have a new one in Saskatchewan, and I noticed also, in another statement here by Stelco last November, that they will start work next year on a new integrated steel plant near Port Dover, Ontario. It will provide 1.3 million tons a year of capacity by the time it's completely developed.

It's obvious the existing steel plants in the east are expanding. We have Saskatchewan taking an initiative with federal government help. I just wonder whether the Minister is in a position now to tell us much more definitely than has been done up to this point how seriously B.C. is interested in a steel plant and to what degree these kinds of decisions I've mentioned — the expansion decisions of Algoma and Stelco together with the announcement by Saskatchewan — further reduce the viability of a steel mill being built in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that's probably a fair question. The Minister could perhaps tell us if the government feels they've been too late in reaching the point of decision. It is very clear there is increasing capacity for steel production in eastern Canada and, as I stated, later in Saskatchewan.

Could I ask the Minister whether he was informed recently by Saskatchewan that they had decided to this degree to go it alone with steel mill construction? A big headline here: "West Takes Another Step Towards United Front." The Province of March 19, 1974, first paragraph:

"The four western provinces showed another front of solidarity on Monday, this time with a decision to seek ways to develop a joint industrial strategy."

Having read that and then having heard the Saskatchewan announcement, I wonder to what degree the whole question of steel was discussed among the industrial Ministers of the four provinces. The Minister is quoted as saying:

"We want to put together a basic picture of what we have and from there we hope to develop an industry strategy which we can diversify. This could lead, for instance, to such mechanisms as a trade corporation or a joint permanent planning committee to phase large construction projects."

Whatever discussions had taken place involving the four western provinces, it looks to me as though steel wasn't given the scope of discussion or Saskatchewan chose not to reveal the degree to which they were committed to putting in their own steel mill.

The last point that I wanted to make was this question of processing our primary resources. Again, it was a very basic plank of the NDP election platform in 1972. I can well remember many speeches of the Premier when he was on this side of the House and was Leader of the Opposition. How

[ Page 2309 ]

absolutely wrong it was for this province to ship out primary resources, ores and the like, and to re-import the finished product from Japan and other countries. In the area of industrial affairs this is very much a motherhood issue: everybody is in favour of it but nobody does much about it.

There again, the action that would need to be taken inevitably would involve some measure of pollution, industrialization, perhaps the inevitable use of some agricultural land for the appropriate sites to develop smelters or other plants. Here again, the government since election has remained very vague about it, simply supporting the principle but not coming forward with too much in the way of specific planning.

Just in recent days I heard one of the federal Ministers in Ottawa saying exactly the same thing: Canada's evolution had reached the point where there had to be greater emphasis on the processing of our primary resources. At the moment we were little more than hewers of wood and drawers of water. We exported the materials and let the other countries process and manufacture the secondary and tertiary products. This CBC broadcast I heard by Mr. Southworth the other day mentioned a car assembly plant.

HON. MR. LAUK: What's his first name?

MR. WALLACE: Sorry, I didn't catch his first name but the name was Southworth. I made a note of it because it seemed to me he was making some pretty specific statements regarding steel mill, petrochemical complex and car-assembly plant. These were the three items that really stuck in my mind.

HON. MR. LAUK: What does he do?

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry, I don't know what he does. He might even be a commentator on public affairs; I'm not sure that he's an industrialist or an expert on industrial development.

The question of processing our resources was a little like a pledge to open government: it was one of the very basic ingredients of the election platform of this government. It again was one of the powerful, persuasive planks in the platform which helped elect this government.

While I pointed out in the budget speech that there were some very sad differences between the government's promises and their performance in relation to education and health, I would say this also in this department on two basic ideas: namely, open government and consultation with the people and, secondly, complete failure to reveal even the preliminary planning as to how we are to proceed with the processing of our resources and create more jobs by encouraging processing and secondary industry.

I wonder if the Minister has some specific plans. Can he tell us even by phases what is intended? Is it just simply that after 18 months we still have nothing specific in the planning stage on paper that he can tell us about? I hope the Minister answers some of these questions.

HON. MR. LAUK: First of all, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) will probably be back shortly.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised several points and I'll answer them as precisely but as briefly as I can. With respect to the four tankers from the Crown corporation in Indonesia: recently another foreign country, as a matter of fact, dropped in to see us and was inquiring about five freighters and three tankers. These inquiries from foreign countries for ship building in this province are not unusual. I'm instructed that the existing yards will be occupied and busy until 1980.

Presumably the Hon. Member is referring to what expanded ship-building business we can do and not to utilizing the existing facilities, because we cannot possibly handle the business we are getting now. I think that an approach to expansion of these facilities is imminent.

The federal government, with advice from the Province of British Columbia, is quickly drafting a major new policy on assisting all ocean industries. I repeat for the benefit of the middle gallery again — are you listening? The federal government, with the advice of the Province of British Columbia, is quickly drafting a major new policy on assistance to all ocean industries. They anticipate that the new policy will benefit British Columbia greatly.

MR. WALLACE: When?

HON. MR. LAUK: Soon. So far as the details are concerned, British Columbia will plunge into this programme with our own development funds.

I expect, Mr. Member, that the next 15 to 20 years will be a period of major expansion in terms of ship building in British Columbia.

There is another point that I think should be raised. Soon the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and myself will be announcing a transportation study of a major nature that will hopefully take into consideration your suggestion to plan for development in the Province of British Columbia.

As far as port development is concerned, I more than anyone else, I think, am most upset and frustrated at the kind of lack of coordination and communication between the various harbour

[ Page 2310 ]

authorities and National Harbours Board. The Minister of Transport and Communications a little while ago called for a western regional harbours board, and I thoroughly support that. It is the only way to go. Those are some of the things that you mentioned.

You also talked about freight rates, and they are highly complicated. They involve a number of factors. We argue one thing for the Prairies and ourselves in relation to what advantages we may have over and above the Prairies. And we do. We have several advantages. They've got from their point of view grain shipments through the Crowsnest Past agreement…Pass agreement — "Past" is a slip of the tongue which was probably my hope rather than a reality — but it causes a situation where we can realistically say that as British Columbians we have been subsidizing the Prairies. To some extent they've been subsidizing us on the shipment of steel, up until recently.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's a question you would have to ask of the Ministers that were there. But in terms of freight rates we are constantly in discussion with the federal government and with the other provinces. It is not an easy thing, and the solution is not easy to come by. Tariffs are a very important aspect that relate to the point that you were making. Again, we are participating fully on a week-to-week, day-to-day basis, with the Department of Industry and Trade in Ottawa with respect to the new GATT round of negotiations.

You were talking about a slide area in the canyon. I'm instructed that the CN has a major upgrading programme on stream. The CP has a twin track programme all the way from Calgary to Vancouver starting up soon. The major alternative, of course, is the Ashcroft-Clinton run, which is hopefully going to be on stream soon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, we just signed the agreement in principle, you know.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: The only tie that Member's seen is around his neck.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's as vicious as I get, Mr. Member.

You asked about public hearings. Well, there are public hearings that are going on right now with respect to site 1 in the northeast of the province. You should pop up there in one of those helicopters and have a look.

On the northwest, a point should be made. There were decisions that were made some years ago that have locked all of us as British Columbians into particular directions in the northwest. It's not a question of whether the Fort St. John-Dease Lake line will be built. It's built, and through some of the best and most beautiful country in the world. It's not a question of whether there's going to be Eurocan and how do we save it, or Colcel and how do we turn that around. They're there. That's the nub of the economy of the northwest.

As I said earlier in answering to the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), impact studies are now being undertaken by the secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee and we hope to see the results of those soon.

You mentioned Holbrook of Algoma Steel. I should say that he says that it's completely economically unviable to have any kind of steel production west of Sault Ste. Marie, and I'll tell you why. For years the people of western Canada, and in particular of British Columbia, have been paying through the nose the highest possible prices for steel. We've been paying through the nose by being only the hewers of wood and drawers of water while they've been manufacturing the nuts and bolts in central Canada. Certainly it's been a cosy position for the central-Canadian steel producers for many years, and now the tide is turning. So I imagine this is one of his first trips out west and he'll be making many more and trying to dig up a bit more feeling against steel production out here. I wouldn't, with respect, take that as seriously as others might.

As far as added value to resources is concerned, I suppose we could discuss a number of specifics. I'm not sure that a definitive overall government programme to add value to resources means anything. What happens is that there are various things that governments can do with the cooperation of the various primary industries of the province. Copper smelting and fabricating must be carried on with a thorough dialogue between that industry and government and what assistance can come through there. The dialogue hasn't been good and I haven't been satisfied, but we are still making every attempt to make sure the dialogue continues to some sort of fruition.

Plywood is an added value item, by the way. There's a major programme now that used to be done in the back door of the previous administration and now is done up front. It is called the Canadian Overseas Marketing Development Programme. We are in discussion with the plywood manufacturers in this province, discussing ways and means to increase our product sales in Japan and in Europe. The success has

[ Page 2311 ]

been great. From there it is to something else. It's a gradual type of thing because we have to find not only skilled labour, but build up the expertise and the practice and the markets as well. It takes time. It takes convincing. It takes a marketing programme, and that we are involved in. Those are the two areas.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) isn't in his seat, but I can state a few of the survey plans that are also relevant to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace's) questions that are agreed to as a joint funding of these surveys between the federal and provincial government.

There is the completion of the Kootenay task force studies, which have been continuing over the past several months in specific sectors, both industry and geographic. The northeast task force studies will also be jointly funded and this is a retroactive question. They also will include whatever new studies are going to be required by discussion.

There will be higher value added resource sector studies. The details and terms of these haven't been worked out specifically and I won't mention the areas until they have been.

There are other surveys and task forces that I wish to announce in due course. Those are the surveys that have been currently agreed to. I expect that there may be a provincial total cost of the kind of economic studies that I'm talking about somewhere over $1.5 million. They will be extensive and I hope they won't take any longer than is necessary.

The Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) asked a couple of questions about the general development agreement. I'm not saying they will be but they can include the kind of people services that he was talking about. I don't expect that we'll be getting involved with DREE money in housing programmes, but I do expect that we'll be getting involved in discussions with those people in that area. We haven't excluded recreational facilities and transportation facilities. Other infrastructures that may be required here I don't know.

As far as the dollars are concerned, it's not very much. I'm not impressed with the figure — it's about $150 million over the next five years from the federal government's side, not including what our share is or could be. I can tell you that the total profits are $150 million over five years.

I agree with the Member for North Peace River that the regional district up there is a good one that communicates well, provides a great deal of information quickly and seems to give solid information; and they seem to be working well together.

We are talking about the regional level of politicians; I'm not sure about the provincial level of politics. It seems to be in doubt on occasion, but you will have to work that out. I'm nervous about the Tories up there, but as you say, the regional and municipal political situation is very stable.

MR. WALLACE: Could you explain that a little bit?

HON. MR. LAUK: To answer you shortly on whether the DREE will be retroactive in terms of projects: no, it will not be. That doesn't mean to say that a business that is now there will not be supported by some kind of funding if they fit in with the project that is jointly agreed upon; but it will not be a retroactive funding. I think that's clear, but you may have been asking in terms of what was already existing — like a particular kind of plant or manufacturing or whatever. They will be eligible for what support there will be available.

I am not saying they will be, because we have to devise the projects which, in our view, will be necessary to increase economic development in your region.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, I can only see one, the Hon. Member from Vancouver–Point Grey here.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): You fellows will get your turn.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't been dominating the floor. I think that I ought to have an opportunity to say something about industrial development. After all, this is the vote where we talk about it; it isn't the vote where you do anything.

The only Minister who doesn't have any action in Industrial Development is the Minister of Industrial Development himself. Why, the Minister of Transport (Hun. Mr. Strachan) has got an insurance company going, and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich): he's got a chicken farm and a feed plant. The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) has got planing mills, newsprint plants, pulp mills — heaven knows what he'll have after another year; the Premier has got his railroad. I suppose if there are going to be any mines at all in British Columbia, they'll have to be the Minister of Mines' mines. But when we get to Industrial Development — that is, the Minister of Industrial Development — there is no action at all.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier referred to the former Minister of Industrial Development: "Waldo Skillings is a rubber duck!" Was it the Attorney-General? Well, I'm not sure but what they didn't have their governments mixed up, because I think this Minister of Industrial Development must be the water boy to the cabinet, bringing the bucket and towels to the other Ministers. They are the ones who have the action.

[ Page 2312 ]

This Minister of Industrial Development, we heard him for a while today; I think that he was trying to put the opposition to sleep so that he would be able to have his vote pass. But we had a lot on studies, practically nothing on action. I don't know why it is, Mr. Chairman, that government after government refuses to take the portfolio of Industrial Development seriously. I think they should take it seriously enough to appoint a Minister, somebody….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes, that's the trouble. I think there should be somebody in long pants in that portfolio. I think we should have action, and it looks to me like we are not going to get very much from this Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What time did your plane arrive?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is rushing to the Minister's defence with his three-second attention span and his usual tape-recorded message for the Liberals.

Mr. Chairman, what we want is some action. You're the boss. We know you're going to have a wonderful trip to Japan with the Minister of Industrial Development and we hope when you come back you'll bring some good news.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So superior to the rest of the Members of this House. You're so superior.

MR. McGEER: Very, very nice to have you here, Mr. Premier. And that campaigning in Nova Scotia didn't go too well, did it? Maybe you should have come back to B.C. Maybe you would have done a little better.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Send him back. The Liberals will win another eight seats.

MR. McGEER: I certainly hope you'll give that rugby team better help than you gave the socialists in Nova Scotia.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier will have an opportunity to get up and tell us whether or not there are any important industrial development plans for British Columbia. We have been waiting for them under the Minister's vote and we haven't had very much so far. Certainly we hope that what comes out of that trip to Japan…. We are adjourning the House for the purpose of this visit to Japan by the Premier and the Minister of Industrial Development.

That's why we are adjourning the House: for your trip to Japan. So I hope that when you come back you'll have plenty to report. I hope that the time you spend in Hong Kong after the rugby game to Japan will be fruitful too, because the people of British Columbia are really waiting for the new industrial strategy in this province. I can't find it, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, in what I read of the statements of the Minister in the "blues" and some of the things he said today.

But I want to suggest three or four things that he might think about. First of all, we have had a tremendous amount of talk about the desirability of a copper smelter and a steel mill in British Columbia. I am not at all sure that the people who have so enthusiastically put forward these suggestions would continue to be aggressively in favour of such industrial development were they to visit Osaka, Nagoya, Pittsburgh, Hamilton and the other areas in North America, Europe and Asia that have concentrated on this heavy industry.

It's difficult to be certain, looking at the areas around those mills and in those cities, that such industry really brings wealth. Most of them look poor, and they are overwhelmingly polluted.

I have never been an advocate of steel mills or copper smelters. I think they would set British Columbia back. I think we should be grateful that we can take our copper ore and concentrate it and have someone else do the filthy job of processing it into blister copper.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I am very serious. I say we should be grateful that someone else takes on that dirty job, because for about a 10-mile radius around the copper smelter you have a rain of sulphuric acid. Nothing grows. If we want to set aside an area of devastation in British Columbia, we will encourage a copper smelter. With present technology, nothing creates as much devastation industrially.

You do not have the same amount of destruction with a steel mill, but I defy anybody to show me an attractive community that has a steel mill in it. What you are going to have to do to go into steel production in British Columbia is to write off some area of this province as an attractive place to live for as long as steel technology remains in its present state.

It's different for aluminum smelters. Those who have been to Kitimat recognize that it is a model town, a prosperous town. Aluminum is smelted, as you know, by an electrolytic process. The important thing is to have a huge capacity of electricity available.

Of course, Tweedsmuir Park was devastated in

[ Page 2313 ]

preparing a suitable area to supply power to Kitimat. But as far as the city itself is concerned, it certainly is an attractive one. I don't think there is any particular worry about having further aluminum smelters. Copper and steel are in a different category.

What I have repeatedly suggested as an industrial strategy for British Columbia is to turn to something completely different. That is to begin looking at the modern growth industries of today which are not based on trees or minerals, but are based on invention.

Technology is what counts as far as income and prosperity are concerned. The people who hold down jobs in a computer factory not only make more money than those who work in a copper smelter but they work under better conditions and bring greater prosperity to the community where their factory is located.

The question is: what moves are necessary for us to qualify for a place in the new industrial revolution which is based on technology and not resources? Of course, the first thing you have to do is have technology available. This is where we are weakest in British Columbia. We have never made any substantial effort at all to develop technology in this province. We have had a contempt for it; we felt it was only important to develop the forest and the mineral industry. As a result, other places like Japan have leaped ahead of Canada and leaped far ahead of British Columbia. I hope the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) will spend part of his time in Japan not examining copper smelters and steel mills but looking into the very superior technology that nation has developed as a result of government policy.

I think the British Columbia Research Council should have its vote doubled this year, doubled again next year and doubled again the year after that. The amount we spend with our British Columbia Research Council is ridiculously small. It has been one of the zero-growth activities of the provincial government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member if he is referring to the vote under these estimates.

MR. McGEER: I am referring to zero growth in technology as far as the government is concerned. The B.C. Research Council happens to be one. I am glad you mentioned that, Mr. Chairman, because the B.C. Research Council has had growth, but not as a result of government participation. They have had greater participation by private industry which has allowed them to survive and, to a limited degree, prosper. What I am saying is that single institution should have double the money from the provincial government that this Minister has provided this year. Next year it should double again. Maybe we should have several branches of the B.C. Research Council. Maybe it shouldn't be all concentrated there at the University of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member indicate under which vote this would come?

MR. McGEER: The B.C. Research Council? Well, I think there is a vote there. I can't remember whether you were in the chair, Sir, but I recall we went and discussed one of these line estimates and they said, "Well, you can't discuss whether it should be larger or smaller; you can only ask questions as to what they do with it." So the person who would have to increase the size of that would be the Minister.

It is appropriate, I think, to mention that maybe he shouldn't get his salary until he tells us why he can't increase that particular vote. In any event, it's my feeling that the grant is so small — $330,000, I think. I don't have my estimate book in front of me at the moment; the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. If it were $660,000 this year and $1,320,000 next year and $2,640,000 the year after, it wouldn't be growing too fast.

HON. MR. LAUK: How much is realistic this year?

MR. McGEER: I would think double.

I will tell you what I would do with it, Mr. Chairman. I would begin recruiting…. First of all, I would set a substantial part of that new money aside as a loan fund for inventors. One of the great problems is that if you have an invention and you work on it, it costs you a tremendous amount of money to patent the invention. Once you get the invention patented, it costs you more money to try and maintain it and even more money to try and sell it.

I know you are interested in this, Mr. Chairman. I want to give you an example. Where I take my Ford automobile — I don't have a Mercedes, Mr. Chairman — there is a mechanic who has come up with an invention of putting a wire inside the brake drums. The idea is that when your brake drum gets worn, the wire will make contact with the metal shoe and a warning light will go on your panel. It is a sort of safety device where, if Ralph Nader had been chairman of General Motors, it would be in all our automobiles.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's on my Mercedes.

MR. McGEER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Members must not interrupt the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 2314 ]

MR. McGEER: Let me go on. I have written letters on behalf of this man to Mr. Iacocca who is president of Ford company in the United States. I have written to Wagner Brake and other places. This man holds the Canadian, U.S., European and he did hold Japanese patents. But he just runs a garage and he doesn't have any money. None of these places wanted to buy his invention or licence.

Finally, he didn't have any money any longer to renew his Japanese patent. So what happens as soon as his patent lapses in Japan? Toyota put it in the Toyota automobile. Your imported Toyotas now have a safety panel including this device. They weren't interested in it until he couldn't afford any longer to pay his patent duties to keep the patent current. As soon as it lapsed, the automobile company grabbed it and put it in their car.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I don't know because he holds the German patent. It could be worthwhile inquiring into this.

So what happens to the British Columbian? First of all, it takes his life savings to develop and patent the thing. Then the big boys pay no attention to him at all until he can't afford to keep it up any longer. Then they introduce it.

Perhaps this man will have a lawsuit against the Toyota company for infringement of his patent in Canada, but then he has to have the money to hire the lawyer to fight the lawsuit.

So you can see how the man who has genius, the British Columbian who has genius, is absolutely licked in this world of corporate giants. There is no mechanism here in British Columbia by which technology can be pursued unless the person has sufficient resources in order to take on the big boys. The B.C. Research Council would be one vehicle for promoting British Columbia inventions and technology in such a way as to provide jobs and industry of a sophisticated character here in our province.

I would like to see a loan fund for British Columbia inventors. I would like to see a $25,000 prize for the best invention of the year. But for the second-, third- and fourth-place people, why not have a fund they can call on? Put up all the money and take 5 per cent of whatever royalties they get. That would be a fair buying back.

The next thing I would do with some of this money is have a share for the development and marketing of inventions. Perhaps this will lead to industry.

I made a suggestion to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) some time ago about an artificial kidney that has been developed at the University of British Columbia. There are still one or two technical problems to be overcome but within three or four months, Dr. Brockley, who has been the chief engineer developing it, tells me it should be ready for production. This will be a throwaway artificial kidney. There is probably a market of somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 of them a year in North America. Perhaps they would sell for $20 apiece, I don't know, but you are looking at a reasonably small gross sale — maybe $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 a year.

This is a highly sophisticated, artificial organ. All the technology has been developed at the University of British Columbia, the engineering faculty and the Vancouver General Hospital. At the present time, some of the development work is being done at the B.C. Research Council. It's not being done with any money supplied by the provincial government; the money is being supplied by Hoffmann La Roche, a foreign-based pharmaceutical company that has a medical engineering division.

The same kind of technology involved in developing this artificial kidney can be used to develop an artificial lung. Again, it will involve very sophisticated engineering and inventive genius on the part of people to develop it. That most difficult aspect has already been proven here in British Columbia. What we cannot do because of lack of technology is to carry it further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I note that the Hon. Member is discussing at considerable length a matter in vote 128. Perhaps if we pass the other votes, you could continue to discuss this point.

MR. McGEER: No, because there are other ways that the Minister could do it. Somebody got me — I don't know who — Mr. Chairman, on to the B.C. Research Council. Oh, it was somebody who suggested what I do with the money. It doesn't need to go through this agency. The important thing for the Minister to grasp….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would it be agreeable with the Hon. Member if we let the other votes through and then he could continue his discussion under vote 128?

MR. McGEER: There are a couple of other matters, and I'm nearly through with this. It really doesn't involve the B.C. Research Council as an integral part of it; it just happens that this is the route through which the engineering-development money from a foreign firm has to be funnelled because we lack mechanisms in British Columbia for supplying it.

If this were to come to manufacturing, why shouldn't the manufacturing benefits be obtained here in British Columbia? Why shouldn't the people who invented and developed this artificial organ be able to have the manufacturing close by where their

[ Page 2315 ]

expert consultative advice could be offered? Why not, Mr. Chairman? Because we lack in British Columbia any scientifically-based manufacturing firm of any size. We don't have engineering firms that produce the sophisticated goods of today's world. Therefore we don't have any firms that naturally could take up this kind of a British Columbia invention.

A mechanism has to be found to get something like this started in order for us to branch out. It's a little like finding the first gusher in a new field, like the LeDuc field in Alberta. It's a little like striking the first one. Before you get that first one, you have to be prepared to lose a certain amount of money. You have to enter into things that are uneconomic in the short run but will produce enormous rewards in the long run.

This is the first essential step that must be taken in British Columbia. This is the one step that governments consistently have been hesitant to take. It would not involve fantastic expenditures compared with what the government has been prepared to do in so many other fields. But unless some first step is taken, nothing will happen.

Every place in the world doesn't enjoy the fruits that go with such development as I'm talking about today; it's restricted really to a limited number of places in the world. Most places would go for steel mills and copper smelters, and they build factories for running shoes and radios too. These are all polluting industries or low-profit industries. If you're going to go for something big with a real future, then you have to do the unusual thing. You have to inspect those places in the world that have succeeded and say, "I'm going to be like them."

The Minister will have this opportunity just next week if he uses it. He'll be able to find these places because they're not too far from the steel mills and the copper smelters. Japan is a compact country.

If he were to ask, "Which would you rather have?" I'm sure the answer universally would be: "I'd prefer the computer factory; I'd prefer the factory that turned out transistors or television sets or optical instruments or cameras or tape recorders or all the dozens of things we buy from Japan." If they had their choice, they'd take those rather than the steel mills and the copper smelters.

The Minister really will, in my view, have justified his trip to Japan, and so will the Premier, if they can inspect what's going on in this area and bring back to British Columbia the kinds of programmes that will for the first time produce results.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's always good theatre to have the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey arrive in the afternoon and pick up the threads or the twilight phrases of the debate. The Hon. Member is a neurologist, you see, and he has to work at UBC and continue his research on brains. He's working on his brains out at UBC continuously. When he gets a chance, he leaves his brains there and flies over Air West to Victoria. (Laughter.) He bounces in casually, in a very cavalier fashion. He'll answer any question you like. If you want to know how to dismantle an atomic reactor, he'll be able to answer that. He knows everything.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: He's here all the time. I should say, Mr. Chairman, he's always available to answer any question. He's only here half the time, for example.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister address himself to the estimates, please, and the vote before us?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm referring to the estimates that go to support the research assistant for the Liberal bench. Let me tell you why I'm talking about that particular estimate at this time. There has been absolutely no research into that Hon. Member's speech. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He hasn't got….

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I should know better; I should know better. He knows everything but he didn't bring his estimate book. He couldn't tell me what vote. You pointed it out to him, Mr. Chairman, and he didn't have his estimates book.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It may be possible that the Chair is behind. If we passed the other three votes then we could discuss the B.C. Research Council.

HON. MR. LAUK: I wanted to make some comments on the armchair industrial philosophy of the Hon. Member: the economy of high technology. Every economist on the face of the earth knows it couldn't work in this kind of a jurisdiction, yet he trucks it out year after year, year after year.

I agree with an industrial research park, and we're going to be progressing towards that. But we're not going to invent all kinds of funny little things, like a new Grandma's Relish, a needle that goes through something that tells us about a brake pedal, or how to rejuvenate the Liberal Party. You know, all of these unique inventions that are available or could be available.

But in any event, I'll just leave you with one thought, one thought only, which will be the first you'll have today. The boom-and-bust features of the economy are never more apparent than in high

[ Page 2316 ]

technology industry. The aerospace field, the electronics field are the worst kinds of fields you can get into without a thorough base of raw materials, high expertise in terms of the electronics industry or aerospace, and market. These are the things that must be looked into, and obviously the Hon. Member did not.

I would like to discuss at some future time the good relationship this government has with B.C. Research Council and how they don't want any increases in their vote. Ask them first before you come in here and say they want an increase. In any event, we are giving specific increases to specific programmes upon their request. Check with them before you come in here. They're just a little bit away from your laboratory where you left your brains.

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. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to proceed to second reading of public bills and orders.

Second reading of Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES INTERIM
RENT STABILIZATION ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, in the rental situation in this province there was a necessity upon the part of any government with a heart to step in and protect within its powers tenants who were suffering intolerable pressures as a result of the plummeting vacancy rate, particularly in the lower mainland.

That vacancy rate has been quoted in many figures and I quote for the time being the survey of rental accommodation that has been done for the Vancouver Real Estate Board in a very recent publication. The figures are well known and they can be found in Statistics Canada and in CMHA.

In 1963 in the City of Vancouver the vacancy rate was not too bad so far as the interests of tenants were concerned. It varied from 3.7 to the area of 4 per cent, but by the end of last year in Vancouver city the vacancy rate had fallen to an all-time low compared with any period for which statistics have been kept. That vacancy rate was down to 0.2 per cent in December, 1973, and for the greater Vancouver metropolitan area, the vacancy rate for December, 1973, was 0.4 per cent.

As a result of that situation, this study that I have in my hand says the following:

"After referring to the change in the income tax laws which have interfered to a considerable extent with the construction of new rental units, it can be noticed that vacancy rates recorded in December, '73, are the lowest at any time since the survey has been conducted. In the past a decrease in apartment vacancy rates has been associated with an increase in construction activity. At the present time we are in a situation where both are depressed at the same time."

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member asks why. If you read the brief, they say "principally the income tax changes." They also refer to escalating values in the construction field.

So we have the situation where tenants deserve protection. We had calls upon this government which we respect, asking us to take action. Thus the Vancouver City Council on January 23, 1974: "Council members rejected the idea of applying a specific limit to any increases, but supported the call for the review boards." And in The Vancouver Sun of March 12, 1974:

''Liberal Allan Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound) called on the government Monday to implement a freeze on rents. He said, 'I've spent the weekend talking to renters who are faced with increases they can't afford and there was nowhere else these people could move.' He added, 'If you're on a limited income and get a notice of a $25-a-month increase it hurts. Why doesn't the government take action?'"

We have had other calls upon this government to exercise on behalf of these people a little bit of public conscience, because while I don't pretend that all landlords — and I'm not suggesting it for a minute — have been gouging, and I know that a great many of the landlords of this province, big and small, have received the recommended action of this government with favourable comments and have understood our action and have recognized that while there are anomalies, and there undoubtedly are, because in a short-term rent stabilization such as the present, you may do more to injure the economic position of somebody who has been good to his tenants over a period of time than the gouger himself…. So it's true that this period should be interim and we should move as quickly as we can towards the kind of general review that is heralded in the new Landlord and Tenant Act that has been filed with the House today.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll bring that on as

[ Page 2317 ]

quickly as we can, subject to the business of this House, which proceeds at its own peculiar pace. However, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there are good citizens of the Province of British Columbia out there who are being gouged and victimized. I quote from The Vancouver Sun, but I could quote from letters and from cases all over this province.

Here's somebody in the block at East 10th — Bert Pilchard, a constituent of the provincial riding of Vancouver East. He's working as a bookkeeper, and his rent was increased by $120 to $175 by the new owner, who is Mr. Rubra. Now, that's an existing building and I have no doubt that perhaps the wages of the caretaker went up, and the natural gas, if they had it, and the fuel went up, and the taxes on the building may have gone up, although in this case I don't think it's true because taxes are not going up in the City of Vancouver.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. Speak to the Hon. Minister. When that kind of increase is loaded upon tenants who are defenceless in view of the vacancy rates that I have been speaking about, who are at the mercy of their landlords, who must be either victimized and exploited or move out and move far from their jobs and their friends, for the government not to throw out a lifebelt to those people would indeed be harsh and unconscionable conduct on our part. So we have extended a lifebelt because two things were happening: people were being gouged in some instances, and in other instances rent increases were taking place because of the expectation that this Legislature would pass a new Landlord and Tenant Act.

So we said that we ought to throw them a lifebelt, and that's what this Bill 75 is — a lifebelt. We said they should not be allowed to sink. These are poor people who are being hurt and where rent increases were harsh and unconscionable and excessive and hurting the people of the Province of British Columbia, if we as legislators sat back and did nothing, we would be culpable. It was our duty and remains our duty in an interim way, and within the powers that are granted to us, to answer these requests for help which have come not only from MLAs in this House but from civic bodies and from the tenants themselves, and as fairly as we can to impose a restraint which will be interim and will stabilize the situation in the light of today's costs for a period of time.

If the Hon. Members have looked at the new Act, it's basically a matter of enacting that Act and of establishing the machinery that is contemplated in that Act where we obtain the best personnel and have the least bureaucracy, but the fairest and simplest treatment for the tenants and the landlords for the Province of British Columbia. I would be looking at six to eight months, I would think, at the present time.

I do not pretend that the problem we're talking about will go away quickly, because that vacancy rate which has plummeted to 0.2 has to be looked at in the light of the people who are pouring into this province. They love our climate and they love our government and they're fighting to get into B.C.

We have a soaring population growth, particularly in the lower mainland of B.C., which is why there devolves upon us this twofold duty, to protect tenants from being victimized in the interim, and to proceed as we are proceeding with the most massive housing programme, an infusion of aid, running into figures of $100 million a year on a scale which has never before been seen in this or any other province.

So in this Bill 75, Mr. Speaker, we carry out a little bit of the obligation which devolves upon our consciences to protect those who are being victimized. I have pleasure in moving second reading.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Speaking to the bill, I'd like to say that temporary controls and partial controls on the economy just simply do not work.

We've seen the U.S. and the type of controls that they've tried to put on, even on a more sophisticated basis than this. We've seen nothing but chaos in the United States with their freezes on parks and partial freezes on the economy.

When you bring in a bill like this where there's a freeze on only one sector of the economy, it's admitting the failure to solve the specific problem, the specific problem of rental accommodation in this province. Now that's the answer.

The answer was in Vancouver some years back when we had a 10 per cent vacancy rate. The tenants were in control. The tenants got good rents; they got good services. But what's happening since the introduction of this bill? You have landlords announcing in advance that they're going to decrease services. They're going to suspend garbage service in the buildings. They are going to suspend or curtail some of those services that aren't specifically covered under the terms of the lease or the terms of the rent with the tenant. These are the areas that won't be looked after.

What I'm saying is that if you have landlords who gouge, if you have landlords who will bring in unconscionable rents in any instance, they can work around and defeat the spirit of this Act.

I was wondering if before the Attorney-General brought in this Act he met with any of the organized groups, any of the landlords' groups or apartment groups, or had discussion on some sort of voluntary restraint until he has brought in his Landlord and

[ Page 2318 ]

Tenant Act and until the Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) had initiated some incentives to increase the rental units in this province.

Here we've got an example: from the years 1965 to 1972 the province was building at a rate of about 12,000 to about 16,000 units per year. But since that time, and particularly for 1974, the projections are only for 4,000 additional apartment units in the greater Vancouver region which is the area most under pressure right now. Many of the Interior regions do not have the pressure on rental accommodation. This bill might apply only to the urbanized areas, the large areas — greater Vancouver and perhaps the Victoria area.

I know in my own constituency I did a check on rental accommodation. We do still have a surplus and we're not having the type of rent increases that seem to be announced in the Vancouver papers. But I wonder, instead of bringing in this bill, if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) did try and initiate some action on a volunteer basis seeing as how this is only going to be temporary. Did you talk to the landlords? Did you talk to their groups? Did you try and get to them and say, "Look, can you hold off? We're bringing in a whole new Act dealing with landlord and tenants. And while you're faced with high inflationary costs, can you keep your increases related directly to those costs that you're faced with?"

We know that these buildings have been faced with many increased costs themselves. The very inflationary rate….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They are good people to listen to. But they don't all listen to us, though.

MR. BENNETT: That's what I'm saying. When you're bringing a bill in, Mr. Attorney-General, what you're bringing in is going to affect the good landlord because the bad ones will defeat it anyhow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BENNETT: Absolutely. I can….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote for it and help defeat the bad landlord.

MR. BENNETT: The bad landlord is not covered under this legislation. This legislation isn't anything more than an admission that you haven't yet taken the initiative, or you don't have the answers for solving the rental accommodation.

I will be voting against this bill. I'll be voting against it, not against rental accommodation and lower rents, but that you're taking a Band-aid approach to solving a situation that's getting out of hand in British Columbia. We're not getting the rental accommodation built.

I would think that you may let this bill…. You talk about six or eight months — how are you going to set up the machinery to enforce a bill or an Act that's only going to impose controls for six or eight months? What sort of police force? What sort of investigation branch? Are you going to hire a whole series of temporary civil servants to investigate the apartment buildings in this province?

Much better to have come up with a long-term solution — creating the incentives for more units to be built in Vancouver. Far better to come up with legislation that's going to be permanent in this province rather than legislation you say is going to be enforced for only six or eight months. I just can't see how you'll get and set up the mechanism to enforce this bill in that period of time.

I believe that when we just take a look at the figures — only 4,000 projected new apartment units in the greater Vancouver area this year compared to the average, as I said, of 12,000 to 16,000 that have been building in that area between 1965 and 1971 — we certainly have an indication of where the problem lies.

I realize, and the Attorney-General mentioned it, that when the federal government took away the Act where you could take depreciation on other income they reduced incentives to own rental accommodation. But certainly the province in itself could have taken some initiative, especially when you've got a Housing Minister, especially when he's been given the authority, charged with responsibility. Many people say he's got great responsibility, but where are the answers?

The other day we went through the Housing Minister's estimates but there weren't great, bold new proposals for rental accommodation. Nowhere in that budget were there any proposals for solving the type of rental accommodation. We need to solve the problem in the greater Vancouver district.

Now you talk about 8 per cent, but the inflationary factor is 10 per cent. You haven't even brought in a control that beats the inflationary factor.

How was a rate like this established? After what computation? After what input? After what research? How did you arrive at 8 per cent? Why didn't you work to the inflation factor? And even if you had the inflationary factor from last year, have you anticipated that it may be higher this year? All indications are that inflation is accelerating at a greater rate this year than it did in the 10 per cent in 1973.

These are things that concern us that this bill may have been hastily drawn, brought in not out of concern for the tenants, but out of concern for pressure inside the party that you hadn't met with programmes and come up with a solution for

[ Page 2319 ]

providing this rental accommodation. That's the answer. That's what's wrong.

We see here in this bill a hastily drawn bill: one that's unenforceable; one that will only penalize the landlord with a conscience. The unconscionable landlord will still get away with the same sort of abuses.

What about key money? You're talking about key money now. What about reduction of services that aren't tied into the rental agreement?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Read the order paper; that's where the connection is.

MR. BENNETT: We are discussing Bill 75 and I see no provision for solving that problem. Now if you're as concerned as you say and if you've done the research as you say, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, you would have come up with definite answers, but over and above that your government would have a positive programme for solving the rental accommodation programme in Vancouver, indeed in all of B.C.

For that reason this bill is an unworkable bill, hastily drawn, brought in hastily and it will not solve or it will not meet the conditions of the problems that exist in Vancouver today. There's always a problem with a temporary bill — it takes away the urgency that gets to the root of the real problem. I'm afraid, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, you may reduce the urgency for solving the rental accommodation problem in this province by bringing in a temporary bill at this time. We are against it for those reasons.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we too will oppose this legislation. The Hon. Attorney-General was good enough in opening this debate to refer to words which I spoke in this chamber calling upon the government to exercise its authority to establish a rental freeze in this province to assist certain people in the province who were being affected by activities of landlords as they were then being carried out.

The Hon. Attorney-General said that if they had not taken steps in those circumstances, such as Bill 75, the government would be culpable.

Mr. Speaker, I would never have believed that a government conscious of what was taking place in this province with regard to rental accommodation could have brought forward a bill so incompetent as Bill 75.

It has been suggested by people who are in the rental field, by economists who understand rental construction and the problems attendant upon the operation of rental accommodation, that rental freezes are useless.

I for one happen to believe that rental freezes are not useless. They are not useless if they will bring the government to its senses so it will take the action which the government must take in order to relieve a situation over which the individual has no control. But Bill 75 is not that kind of action.

The Attorney-General in introducing this legislation did not give us one fact to justify the 8 per cent limitation on rental increases. And he has none. All of the statistics that are available with respect to increasing costs facing landlords deny 8 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I certainly will not support the 8 per cent freeze because, Mr. Attorney-General, it's an incompetent piece of legislation. You didn't consider adequately the problems which face the tenant and you didn't consider the ways in which this government, with the kind of revenues available to it and to the Minister of Finance, could have resolved the situation for those people in the province who need assistance of government. As a matter of fact, what you have done, rather than throw to some people a lifebelt, is to have thrown them a noose.

You have done one thing in the weeks this bill has stood on the order paper: you've deterred any possibility that there might be rental housing starts in the Province of British Columbia. How long it will take for the private sector of the economy to get over what you have done with regard to Bill 75 only the future will tell. For the Minister to suggest that he must forecast the continuation of this temporary rent freeze for six to eight months will only delay by many, many months more than that the time those people in the private sector, upon whom this government must depend to provide for the increase in rental accommodation supply, will require before they can have the faith that there will be some stability in the Province of British Columbia to encourage them to come back into the industry.

The Hon. Attorney-General speaks about the plummeting vacancy rate. That vacancy rate has been plummeting all the time this government has been the government. They haven't taken one positive step to do anything about it. They've just discovered it.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): It was coming for eight years.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, of course, it's been plummeting for eight years. I'm not suggesting that all the problems began with this government, but they've been the ones who for 18 months have had the responsibility and they've done nothing. They've got a Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who went through hours of debate here and gave us no indication that they were going to have any solution toward the problems in the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 2320 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why did you call for a rent freeze?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'll answer that question, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Premier threw across the floor of the House. I called for a rent freeze because I expected we would see a responsible government bring forth the kind of legislation the Attorney-General brought forth earlier this afternoon which can provide a solution for those tenants who may be gouged by landlords but will also ensure that landlords can function in the Province of British Columbia in a responsible and effective way, and so we can have rental accommodation built in this province to meet the needs.

Even in the City of Vancouver alone, speaking about the vacancy rates, in order that we could even have the vacancy rate that is spoken of as being acceptable — about 3 per cent — we would need to have completed today and vacant 2,500 rental units. There is not one rental unit being constructed in the City of Vancouver. That's the nature of the problem that confronts this government, that confronts this province and confronts the private sector whose responsibility it will continue to be to provide this type of accommodation. It will be the private sector's responsibility because this government is unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

The Attorney-General can't even justify 8 per cent. I'm glad he had the wit, in his amendments in the bill brought before us in the bill today, to recognize that that rate of increase couldn't be justified throughout the entire province or, indeed, in any one region of the province. That's the solution; that's the bill we should be debating right now. If the government was on its feet and as concerned for the solution of the problem as the Attorney-General would suggest, there wouldn't be any talk of six to eight month's delay; they would be moving and moving now to establish the rentalsman that this new legislation calls for.

The Attorney-General speaks of those tenants who are being gouged; he speaks of those tenants who by reason of income couldn't pay any properly allowable increase in rent. There are those people, Mr. Speaker, but what is the solution for that? The solution for that is for this government to grant to those people a renter's grant out of the resources of this province which is really meaningful and not what was offered as a back of the hand from the Minister of Finance in his budget: $2.50 a month. This government should be providing for those senior citizens and others on fixed incomes who cannot meet proper rental figures a proper demand subsidy. That's the way this government with its hundreds of millions of dollars of surplus should be responding to their need.

At the same time, the government should be moving every way it can to ensure that more rental accommodation is being provided. This will only take place when this government is able to satisfy the private investor in the Province of British Columbia who is willing to become a landlord that he can invest his moneys and discharge his responsibilities as a landlord and recover a fair and reasonable return even in the face of rising costs which in many instances are the direct result of this government's own actions.

There are those landlords who, it may be claimed, will gouge tenants. There are, at the same time, every bit as many landlords who have been very fair over the years to their tenants and who have resisted the opportunity to increase rents. They are affected by this legislation; they are finding themselves in a position where their operations are completely uneconomic today. To grant them the right to a limited increase of 8 per cent is to ensure that their operations will continue to be uneconomic.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's better than a freeze then, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It is not better than a freeze; it's worse than a freeze.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A freeze, if the Attorney-General will only pay attention to the debate, is only the beginning of a solution — a freeze followed immediately by the kind of legislation which will permit the proper adjudication of rental increases and proper assessments of rental increases.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Look at the order paper.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the Hon. Minister of Health chirps into the debate: "Look at the order paper." I say, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Minister of Health believes that to be the case, then, when I take my place, let him stand and adjourn this debate so we can get on with the bill which is on the order paper.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Machinery. This government had no difficulty, as I've said in earlier debates, of establishing machinery when it wants to. But in something the people of the province really require, then it has to have six or eight months to establish the machinery. If this government had been attending to its responsibilities, it would have recognized from August, 1972, that it would be obliged to establish this machinery.

What else do we have from this government? We have the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) who raised such a storm in the papers about

[ Page 2321 ]

the special debates he was going to have. What is he doing now to further fan the flames? Telling the tenants not to pay their increases that this bill would permit. This is the kind of comment, Mr. Speaker.... No, it doesn't lead to insurrection. The people to whom those words are directed in this province are too responsible for that. But it certainly leads one to wonder how serious that Member could have been in calling upon this government for action and then suggesting that they shouldn't even pay the 8 per cent. It will be interesting to see how that Member votes when we come to deal with the principal legislation which will resolve this problem hopefully in this province once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a greater responsibility to the landlords and to the tenants than it has displayed in bringing forth Bill 75.

I suggest that the government withdraw Bill 75 immediately, replace the restricting provisions with provisions similar to those which are already contained in the bill introduced this afternoon if it needs to have some early action in this regard. Those provisions in regard to rentalsmen are not an inseparable part of the later legislation.

If it is a matter of getting on with the job, then do it that way. And let us start to establish the organization which can solve for the responsible landlord and for the responsible tenant the proper relationship between those two groups, and make provisions which will put the irresponsible landlord to the test and the irresponsible tenant as well.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver-Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this piece of legislation. First, I would like to ask the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) if he would care to produce the document that quotes me as suggesting that the tenants should not pay the 8 per cent.

I think that that Member has a pretty good reputation in this House for being a man of great integrity and honesty, and I would be the first to say that — at least, up until today.

Now there is a very serious crisis situation, really, not just in British Columbia but throughout the North American continent, with respect to housing accommodation. I suggest that the opposition is having a great deal of difficulty finding some way to oppose the measure that the Attorney-General has introduced.

It's a temporary freeze on the rising cost of rental accommodation until the kind of legislation required to ensure an equitable operation for the owners of the accommodation as well as the tenants can be developed. Today we have been able to table the document. I am sure when we are debating it we will be soon able to get the machinery in order and in operation and rescind this particular Bill 75.

It was never intended as an absolute answer to the problem. It was never intended to solve the problem, because obviously it is a long-standing problem that has finally reached, perhaps, the end of its day in this fast-developing society: that is, the idea that housing can be made available on a simple supply-and-demand basis where we throw living accommodation into the marketplace the same as we do cosmetics or automobiles.

We are talking about a facility that is essential, like food and clothing. A place to stay, a roof over your head, is not something that should be bartered for, in the usual sense of the word, because invariably people are left in the cold — invariably. We rely on the developments that we have — that is, the community development that we have in the large cities — where people have to live and work in close proximity. They don't have an opportunity even to go out into the woods and build their own house and saw down their own trees, because it's just impossible. They are sort of captives within a social structure that should be responsible for certain basic essentials. These essentials should not be thrown in the marketplace for the investors to decide and determine the outcome when it respects the livelihood of the people.

This is just a beginning, I hope, as far as this government is concerned, in trying to straighten out some of the inequities within our society. I hope that we will soon be able to make the kind of impact on the federal government to do something about the high cost of living right across the board, particularly in the area of food.

But as a province we are limited. We can't make the kind of decisions that are going to effectively bring things into line — to find some level of stability right across the nation. It would be foolhardy for us to think we can do this alone. It is just as foolhardy for us to say that we should do nothing while we wait for the federal government to take the lead.

What the Members of the opposition are suggesting is that until we can come up with an absolute answer to the problem, we should do nothing. This is what has been suggested.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) would do if he had to give some answers to the kinds of questions that are being asked and that have been asked. I have listened to both sides. I have listened to the arguments of landlords, and one of the things I am becoming more and more convinced about is that the word "landlord" is becoming more and more distasteful to me in this day and age. That simple statement suggests that there are those who have a divine right to control by their capital capacity over those citizens of ours who deserve an equal opportunity in the society.

So because you have the capital, because you are

[ Page 2322 ]

able to acquire land and develop a structure, it is supposed to give you the right to be the lord and master over the people who are dependent on the outcome of your investment. I think that if there hasn't been, it's about time there is a responsibility on the part of landlords to the people they serve.

In the crisis situation we have today I think they are going to have to be prepared to settle for a simple equity value rather than having extra benefits above and beyond that. We are faced with the decision: either we will level off at the expense, perhaps, of some investors, or we are going to lose the whole game, because tenants are very necessary in this society.

As a matter of fact, most people are tenants in one form or the other. They are very important and they deserve being taken care of because they are the ones who are keeping the machinery going.

Now I have a lot of quotes. I think that it is important that we establish for the record the kind of things that people are saying, the kind of things that are bothering them.

I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, for some of the Members of the opposition to tell me: while they raised important points about the seriousness of the problem and the kind of programmes that are necessary, in the meantime how will they answer these problems that the people are presenting them with? How do you deal with the situation when someone states to you:

"Our apartment building has been bought by an American in New York as a good investment. They raised the rent for a two-bedroom suite by $65 and the people were forced to move out. We rent a one-bedroom for $190 and we have received notice of an increase of an additional $45.

"We helped to put this government in power because we believed they would help us people on fixed incomes. I have lived here for 65 years and I have paid lots of taxes. I am 85 years old and my wife and I wonder what is going to happen to us. Please help us from gouging landlords. They don't do a thing for us very often."

Another one:

"We demand a control of rents and a roll-back on rent increases which were unjustly imposed on us. The landlords claim higher taxation by the government. If so, then the hypocrisy has to be exposed.

"This letter is not a personal one, but on behalf of all those who complained to me whose rents were increased."

Another one:

"My wife and I retired and moved to the above address 21 months ago. Our rent at that time was $155 a month plus $12 for garage. Last May the rent was increased to $165, approximately a 7.5 increase. We were able to offset this increase by giving up our garage. This year Block Brothers have invited us to pay $197 a month, plus $15 for garage if we want it, or to get out. So the increase since May is 20 per cent.

"While we are perfectly aware that at the present time there are no legal limits to the allowable rip-off by Block Brothers and their ilk, we do feel that these bloodsuckers must be controlled without delay. We trust that government action will rush controls."

Another one:

"Please find enclosed a copy of a letter to the mayor of the City of Vancouver regarding the recent excessive rent increases in the Vancouver West End. You are probably aware of this situation and have probably received several complaints about it, particularly how it is affecting low-income families and old-age pensioners. Here's hoping that we have your support for some form of temporary rent controls."

An excerpt from that letter to the mayor:

"I am a pensioner living in the West End. My one-bedroom apartment rent has been increased effective March 1 from $135 per month to $178 per month. Other rent increases in the apartment are $125 to $150 (20 per cent), $125 to $178 (42 per cent), $155 to $225 (45 per cent)."

Another one:

"Today I want to mention this business of rent increases. I am myself a victim, as my rent has been increased without warning by 20 per cent. But apparently I am one of the lucky ones, as some people in this building had an increase of as much as 30 per cent and there may be some whose increases have been perhaps even higher.

"I don't want to bore you with all the obvious arguments surrounding this issue simply because you obviously are very much aware of this. What I do like to emphasize is that many people, particularly in tenant areas like the West End, expected that laws with teeth would be made so that tenants in this province could not be any more abused by landlords.

"I think the most urgent task at the moment would be a definite limit on the percentage of the rent increase that is permissible. This really should be only a few per cent, as most of the operating cost of apartments does not increase annually more than that amount.

"Also, this legislation should be made retroactive so that people who have been hit by

[ Page 2323 ]

these increases in recent months can benefit from it.

"Please keep this communication confidential, as I do not want to be evicted for having contacted my MLA regarding this matter."

Another one:

"My main reason in writing is in regard to this unjustified rent increase."

Another one is about the Century House, Kitsilano. With 64 out of 100 suites, the average increase 15.9 per cent with a standard deviation of about 5.3. In dollars, this represented an average increase of $27.50 a month, with the highest increase being 36.2 per cent.

MR. McGEER: How do you calculate it?

MR. BARNES: I'll figure it out for you later. (Laughter.)

In Beach Towers in the West End, 185 units were sampled out of 600 units. The figures are very similar to the Century House, with an average increase of $27.10. In another place, it was $70, which is an increase of 53 per cent, from $132 to $202.

Now, the Attorney-General mentioned some cases that were in The Vancouver Sun. I'm not sure if he mentioned this one, but in February: "11 out of 12 Tenants to Move." This is a quote from a guy by the name of Pops. Some of you may have read the article. "Pops here got a $55 rent increase. Me, I got $55 too, so I pay $130 a month. John across the hall, he pays more than double to $155 from $75 that he paid before. Now all of us have got to move."

Mr. Speaker, I've got a few more and I would like to put them all for the record because I think that the opposition is of the opinion that we've gone down and talked to a few lobbyists who suggested that we have a rent increase. I can assure you that every case that I'm reading to you now is from individuals who can be substantiated or validated, if necessary. I can show you that the people are coming in droves begging for assistance. It is incumbent upon this government to respond, not out of a sense of vindictiveness or indifference for all of the people concerned, but to try and deal with a human situation. This province belongs to the people, and the entrepreneur, the speculator, whatever you want to call that person, be he legitimate or otherwise, has responsibilities. When you have a business licence, in my opinion, in a society that relies…. You're trying to get me to stop, but I'm going to finish my point.

Mr. Barnes moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.